Podcast – The History of Englandhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk
Great history podcasts from the shedWed, 21 Feb 2018 19:38:12 +0000en-GBThe History of EnglandThe History of Englanddavid@thehistoryofengland.co.ukdavid@thehistoryofengland.co.ukhourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.10239a Robin Hood by Glen Longwellhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/02/18/239a-robin-hood-by-glen-longwell/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/02/18/239a-robin-hood-by-glen-longwell/#respondSun, 18 Feb 2018 18:35:23 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=15330Read More]]>I always wanted to look at the legends of Robin Hood and try to sort fact from fiction – and never got round to it. But Luckily here is Glen of the Glen and Dean show, just just that very thing for the history of England!

Glen mentioned his book; you can buy it from Amazon if you like – by following this link to ‘Dead Letters‘.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/02/18/239a-robin-hood-by-glen-longwell/feed/0239 Henry VIII and his Realmhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/02/11/239-henry-viii-and-his-realm/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/02/11/239-henry-viii-and-his-realm/#respondSun, 11 Feb 2018 12:18:28 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=15580Read More]]>Henry wanted a different relationship with his nobility – a service, court based nobility. Royal power meanwhile must be extended and enhanced. Today we look at Tudor lordship and royal power in the north of England.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/02/11/239-henry-viii-and-his-realm/feed/0238 The Fight Backhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/02/04/238-the-fight-back/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/02/04/238-the-fight-back/#respondSun, 04 Feb 2018 08:48:37 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=15287Read More]]>In 1539, Henry became convinced that religious reform was going too far. Cromwell and Cranmer failed to see the signs and during the 1539 the act of Six Articles shocked evangelists.

At parliament in April 1539, Chancellor Audley announced that the king was determined to put an end to the diversity of opinion and disunity, and appointed a group of clerics to produce a statement to end debate. In May, the Duke of Norfolk announced to parliament that the clerics had failed to agree and therefore that six questions would be put to parliament, debated and voted on. The questions were phrased so as to make disagreement difficult, and re-asserted a traditional position. The statements by Audley and Norfolk cannot have been made without the king’s permission and approval. They were duly passed in only slightly revised form.

What motivated Henry?

Multiple worries were in Henry’s mind in 1539. The disunity and religious debate had been a continual worry for him, and conflicted with his vision of how a Prince should order the lives of his subjects – something had to be done to quieten debate. It is also probable that he was personally uncomfortable with the pace of change; on 4th April 1539, Easter Sunday, he very visibly carried out the most demonstrative of traditional ceremonies, the creeping to the cross, and very publicly received holy bread and water – all these were the targets of the evangelicals. Not least, though, was the diplomatic jam England was in. The two European super powers France under the Valois and Empire under Hapsburg had, exceptionally, come to an agreement. England was isolated diplomatically, and Henry genuinely feared invasion. It was time to convince Charles V the Emperor in particular that there was no religious reason for an invasion – that England was orthodox, despite the royal supremacy.

What was the reaction?

Evangelicals were shocked; the act was called ‘the whip with six strings’ Evangelical bishops Latimer and Shaxton resigned their sees. Cranmer debated furiously with himself – but did not resign as Archbishop of Canterbury. He attributed to himself the worst possible motives, which was Cranmer’s style:

Happy man that you are…you can escape! Would that I were at liberty to do the same; truly my see would not hold me back. You must make haste to escape before the Island may be cut off, unless you are willing to sign the decree as I have done, compelled by fear – for I repent of what I have done, and had I known that my only punishment would have been deposition from the Archbishopric…of a truth I would not have subscribed

But Cranmer was also motivated by duty and loyalty – to his king whom he revered, and to his cause of evangelical reform, which would not have been helped by his removal. In fact, the act shocked evangelicals because they had become used to a series of small advanced to their views and a string of little victories; the six articles represented the end of the trend, rather than a backwards step.

Stephen Gardiner and the conservative bishops meanwhile rounded up evangelicals under the act – as many as 500, 200 of whom were ion London under the new Bishop of London, Edmund Bonner. Despite the undoubted atmosphere of suspicion, uncertainty and fear for which he was at least partly responsible, Henry was keen to minimise further upset; and issued a general pardon. Only 6 were to die under the (notably severe) penalties of the act.

The wording of the Act

Here it is in all it’s glory!

An Act abolishing diversity in Opinions

Where the King’s most excellent Majesty is by God’s Law Supreme Head immediately under him of this whole Church and Congregation of England, intending the conservation of the same Church and Congregation in a true, sincere, and uniform doctrine of Christ’s Religion, calling also to his blessed and most gracious remembrance as well the great and quiet assurance, prosperous increase, and other innumerable commodities which have ever ensued, come, and followed of concord, agreement, and unity in opinions, as also the manifold perils, dangers, and inconveniences which have heretofore in many places and regions grown, sprung, and arisen of the diversities of minds and opinions, especially of matters of Christian Religion.

And therefore desiring that such an unity might and should be charitably established in all things touching and concerning the same, as the same, so being established might chiefly be to the honour of Almighty God, the very author and fountain of all true unity and sincere concord, and consequently redound to the common wealth of this his Highness’s most noble realm and of all his loving subjects and other resiants and inhabitants of or in the same: Hath therefore caused and commanded this his most high Court of Parliament, for sundry and many urgent causes and considerations, to be at this time summoned, and also a Synod and Convocation of all the archbishops, bishops, and other learned men of the clergy of this his realm to be in like manner assembled.

And forasmuch as in the said Parliament, Synod, and Convocation there were certain articles, matters, and questions proponed and set forth touching Christian Religion The King’s most royal Majesty, most prudently pondering and considering that by occasion of variable and sundry opinions and judgments of the said articles, great discord and variance hath arisen as well amongst the clergy of this his realm as amongst a great number of vulgar people his loving subjects of the same, and being in a full hope and trust that a full and perfect resolution of the said articles should make a perfect concord and unity generally amongst all his loving and obedient subjects; Of his most excellent goodness not only commanded that the said articles should deliberately and advisedly by his said archbishops, bishops, and other learned men of his clergy be debated, argued, and reasoned, and their opinions therein to be understood, declared, and known, but also most graciously vouchsafed in his own princely person to descend and come into his said high Court of Parliament and Council, and there like a prince of most high prudence and no less learning opened and declared many things of high learning and great knowledge touching the said articles, matters, and questions, for an unity to be had in the same.

Whereupon, after a great and long deliberate and advised disputation and consultation had and made concerning the said articles, as well by the consent of the King’s Highness as by the assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and other learned men of his clergy in their Convocation and by the consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled -it was and is finally resolved, accorded, and agreed in manner and form following, that is to say;

First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ’s mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man;

Secondly, that communion in both kinds is not necessary ad salutem, by the law of God, to all persons; and that it is to be believed, and not doubted of, but that in the flesh, under the form of the bread, is the very blood; and with the blood, under the form of the wine, is the very flesh; as well apart, as though they were both together.

Thirdly, that priests after the order of priesthood received, as afore, may not marry, by the law of God.

Fourthly, that vows of chastity or widowhood, by man or woman made to God advisedly, ought to be observed by the law of God; and that it exempts them from other liberties of Christian people, which without that they might enjoy.

Fifthly, that it is meet and necessary that private masses be continued and admitted in this the King’s English Church and Congregation, as whereby good Christian people, ordering themselves accordingly, do receive both godly and goodly consolations and benefits; and it is agreeable also to God’s law.

Sixthly, that auricular confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used and frequented in the Church of God

And be it further enacted… that if any person or persons… contemn or contemptuously refuse, deny, or abstain to be confessed at the time commonly accustomed within this realm and Church of England, or contemn or contemptuously refuse, deny, or abstain to receive the holy and blessed sacrament above said at the time commonly used and accustomed for the same, that then every such offender.. shall suffer such, imprisonment and make such fine and ransom to the King our Sovereign Lord and his heirs as by his Highness or by his or their Council shall be ordered and adjudged in that behalf; And if any such offender … do eftsoons… refuse… to be confessed or to be communicate… that then every such offence shall be deemed and adjudged felony, and the offender… shall suffer pains of death and lose and forfeit all his… goods, lands, and tenements, as in cases of felony.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/02/04/238-the-fight-back/feed/0237 Dissolution and Destructionhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/01/15/237-dissolution-and-destruction/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/01/15/237-dissolution-and-destruction/#respondMon, 15 Jan 2018 15:15:10 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=14513Read More]]>At the start of 1538, the end of monasticism was widely predicted, and by 1540 the larger monasteries were all gone. Along with an assault on the veneration of relics and saints, the traditional practice of religion was deeply affected.

The execution of John Forrest and the Burning of Derfel Gadarn

After the dissolution of the smaller monasteries gathered pace in 1536 and 1537, Cromwell launched an attack on the most vulnerable practices of traditional religion – the veneration of relics. Where abuses were found, it was impossible for conservatives to defend; and meanwhile they discredited the principles that underpinned monasticism and pilgrimage.

One of the most extraordinary stories in the campaign against images and pilgrimage is the execution of the Observant Friar John Forest, and the burning of Derfel Gadarn, in May 1538.

Derfel Gadarn was a saint, and the object to which the evangelicals were objecting was an image of Saint Derfel, highly esteemed by the people of North Wales, which had been brought to Thomas Cromwell’s attention by his monastic commissioners.

“there is an image of Derfel Gadarn within the said diocese, in whom the people have so great confidence, hope, and trust, that they come daily on pilgrimage unto him, some with kyne, other with oxen or horses, and the rest with money: in so much that there was five or six hundred pilgrims, to a man’s estimation, that offered to the said Image the fifth day of this present month of April

The image was esteemed because it was said if you gave money or animals to the saint, Derfel would come and snatch you from hell itself. It was also prohecised that Derfel would set an entire forest on fire. For the evangelicals this was the height of absurdity and obscenity, an example of the superstition and misplaced worship they were determined to wipe out, a con trip on honest people exercised by the church; while for Conservatives here was one other object of beauty and hope, a saint to intercede in a world of uncertainty and suffering, and to focus their worship.

John Forrest been imprisoned 4 years ago for denying the royal supremacy, and subsequently convicted and sentenced to execution. His execution on 22nd May 1538 was to be used not just for his execution, but to publicly ridicule the veneration of relics.

Forrest was brought to Smithfield in London to be burned. The people of London came in their thousands to watch – 10,000 of them according to Hall, Smithfield square bursting at the seams with agast onlookers – here now was the chance to see the warlike saint, armed with his sword and spear, save his image and his servant, snatch them from the jaws of hell.

They would have seen a stage built next to the scaffold where Forrest was held. On the stage stood the Bishop of Worcester, Hugh Latimer, evangelical and firebrand. Latimer had in fact recommended himself for this job – he was clearly well used to mocking the veneration of relics, and he took this job on with evident enjoyment. Latimer and Cromwell evidently prepared the spectacle in some detail, and Latimer wrote to Cromwell :

If it be your pleasure that I shall play the fool after my customary manner when Forest shall suffer, I would wish that my stage stood near to Forest’s

Latimer preached for 3 hours, punctuated by exhortations to Forest to repent; Forest remained firm

If an angel should come down from heaven and show me any other thing than that I had believed all my lifetime I would not believe him

Latimer had arrived at the big moment. Theatrically he announced that Saint Derfel had been brought all the way from Wales to save the friar. It was Cromwell himself who signalled 6 men to bring in the huge image. The crowd yelled and groaned with fear, animal excitement and anticipation; what would happen?

With mocking, vicious drama, 3 executioners pretended to wrestle with the huge image, and tied it with chains to stop it escaping. Cromwell played along; he roared out, pointing at Forrest

My lord Bishop I think you strive in vain with this stubborn one. It would be better to burn him!

Forrest was lifted in a cradle of chains and swung out above the image of the saint and a pile of wood, and the whole thing lit with torches. As the flames and heat began to reach Forrest he beat his breast and called out

Lord have mercy upon me

As his flesh was burnt agonisingly raw he reached for a ladder to pull himself out of the fire, but could not hold himself, and for 2 hours he suffered in agony while some of the crowd watched and cried in despair at Derfel’s defeat, and others celebrated the exposure of a superstition.

It’s an extraordinary example of the brutality of Tudor execution and justice, and the sheer force of religious feeling. The burning of Derfel and John Forrest no doubt elicited many different responses at the time, from Conservative despair and anger to Evangelical triumph, but let me mention a few. The Chronicler Edward Hall had no sympathy for the Friar. As far as he was concerned the man had shown a lamentable lack of joy at his impending arrival in the afterlife.

In London, probably the most evangelical place in the country, there were those for whom this was confirmation of what they believed. A poem ran around the streets:

But now what we may see

What Gods they be

Even puppets, maumets and Elves

Throw themselves down thrice

They cannot rise

Not once to help themselves

And a wave of vandalism swept through churches as evangelicals took the law into their own hands. Back in Wales, however, the locals nodded sagely and noted that the Saint had indeed, as had been predicted, burned a Forrest.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/01/14/236-the-burning-of-derfel-gadarn/feed/2235 Pilgrimage of Grace IIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/01/07/235-pilgrimage-of-grace-ii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/01/07/235-pilgrimage-of-grace-ii/#commentsSun, 07 Jan 2018 08:52:11 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=14010Read More]]>By December 1536 there were 50,000 rebels camped around Pontefract Castle while inside their leader Robert Aske composed a petition of 24 articles, to re-instate traditional religion and the Pope. No royal army of any size stood between them and London.

Reginald Pole (1550-1558)

Reginald Pole was the grandson of George Duke of Clarence and destined from birth to be a leading member of the English Church. Generously supported in his youth by Henry VIII he was given the finest education, travelling and living in Italy. But by the 1530’s the relationship had gone sour – Pole could not follow Henry in his break with Rome and theological changes. He was horrified at the execution of More and Fisher, and appalled at the royal supremacy; for Pole, the authority of the Pope would always be superior to that of mere secular rulers.

Despite coming to share Luther’s views on justification by faith, Pole was to become Henry and Cranmer’s implacable enemy. His work ‘Defence of the unity of the church’ viciously attacked Henry for breaking the unity of the church for, as he saw it, no more than his lust for Anne Boleyn. Unable to get his hands on Pole despite attempting assassination, Henry would take dire vengeance on Pole’s family.

In December 1536, Pole was sent by the Pope on a doomed attempt to gain Emperor Charles V’s support for an invasion of England in support of the Pilgrimage of Grace. It would not be the last time that religious conflict threatened to lead to foreign war.

The 24 articles of Pontefracte

The 24 Articles were produced in Pontefract Castle by Robert Aske in consultation with his ‘pilgrims’, and in all likelihood Lord Darcy. It is a coherent programme that pulls together the desire of the traditionalists to put back the clock to where it had been. Scattered throughout are some political demands (the re-instatement of Princess Mary for example) and some economic concerns – in particular the gentry’s objection to the Statute of Uses, which closed a loophole allowing transfer of land without payment of a feudal due to the king.

“The first touching our faith”:—To have the heresies of “Luther, Wyclif, Husse, Malangton, Elicampadus (sic), Bucerus, Confessa Germanie, Apolugia Malanctons, the works of Tyndall, of Barnys, of Marshall, Raskell, Seynt Germayne, and such other heresies of Anibaptist,” destroyed.

The supremacy of the Church touching “cura animarum” to be reserved to the See of Rome as before. The consecrations of the bishops to be from him, without any first fruits or pension to be paid to him, or else a reasonable pension for the outward defence of the Faith.

That lady Mary may be made legitimate, and the former statute therein annulled for the danger of the title that might incur to the crown of Scotland: that to be by parliament.

The suppressed abbeys to be restored to their houses, lands, and goods.

To have the tenths and first fruits clearly discharged of the same, unless the clergy will grant a rentcharge in generality to the augmentation of the Crown.

To have the Friars Observants restored to their houses.

To have the heretics, bishops and temporal, and their sect, to have condign punishment by fire or such other, or else to try the quarrel with us and our part-takers in battle.

Lord Cromwell, the Lord Chancellor, and Sir Richard Riche to have condign punishment, as subverters of the good laws of the realm and maintainers and inventors of heretics.

That the lands in Westmoreland, Cumberland, Kendall, Dent, Sedber, Fornes, and the abbey lands in Mashamshire, Kyrkbyshire, Notherdale, may be by tenant right, and the lord to have, at every change two years’ rent for “gressom,” according to the grant now made by the lords to the commons there. This to be done by Act of Parliament.

The statutes of handguns and crossbows to be repealed, except in the King’s forests or parks.

That Dr. Lighe and Dr. Layton have condign punishment for their extortions from religious houses and other abominable acts.

Reformation for the election of knights of the shire and burgesses, and for the use among the lords in the parliament house after their ancient custom.

The statute for inclosures and intacks to be put in execution, and all inclosures and intacks since 4 Hen. VII., to be pulled down “except mountains, forests, and parks.”

To be discharged of the quinzine and taxes now granted by Act of Parliament.

To have a parliament at Nottingham or York, and that shortly.

The statute of the declaration of the crown by will to be repealed.

Pardon by Act of Parliament for all recognisances, statutes and penalties new forfeited during the time of this commotion.

The privileges and rights of the Church to be confirmed by Act of Parliament. Priests not to suffer by sword unless degraded. A man to be saved by his book. “Sanctuary to save a man for all causes in extreme need, and the Church for 40 days, and further according to the laws as they were used in the beginning of this King’s days.”

The liberties of the Church to have their old customs as the county palatine at Durham, Beverlay, Rippon, St. Peter of York, and such other by Act of Parliament.

To have the statute “That no man shall not will his lands,” repealed.

The statutes of treasons for words and such like made since 21 Hen. VIII., to be repealed.

That the common laws may have place as was used in the beginning of the reign, and that no injunctions be granted unless the matter has been determined in Chancery.

That men north of Trent summoned on subpoena appear at York, or by attorney, unless it be directed on pain of allegiance, or for like matters concerning the King.

A remedy against escheators for finding false offices and extorting fees.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2018/01/07/235-pilgrimage-of-grace-ii/feed/4234 Pilgrimage of Grace Ihttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/12/16/234-pilgrimage-of-grace-i/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/12/16/234-pilgrimage-of-grace-i/#commentsSat, 16 Dec 2017 08:10:39 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=13219Read More]]>It is not true to say that Henry died a Catholic without the Pope. The 1530’s were a time of increasing doctrinal confusion which together with the attack on monasticism brought forth a bellow of distress.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/12/16/234-pilgrimage-of-grace-i/feed/13233 Obediencehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/12/10/233-obedience/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/12/10/233-obedience/#respondSun, 10 Dec 2017 09:18:25 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=12890Read More]]>With Anne’s death the traditionalists breathed a heavy sign of relief. now all the bad stuff would stop – evangelical reform would be reversed, Mary would be re-instated. They had a shock coming.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/12/10/233-obedience/feed/0232 Evangelicalshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/12/03/232-evangelicals/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/12/03/232-evangelicals/#respondSun, 03 Dec 2017 09:18:40 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=12442Read More]]>From the mid 1520s, the church authorities began to face a more serious challenge from evangelicals like Thomas Bilney and Hugh Latimer. And in 1526 and 1534, Tyndale’s New Testament in English transformed the situation.

Mark dropped me a note and told me that you can listen to an Audio clip of Tyndale’s translation read in the original pronunciation. Listen to the sample clip.

The early life of Hugh Latimer (1485-1555)

The career of Hugh Latimer is a good example of an evangelical preacher. Latimer is the man beloved of Economic historians, since he provided the sweetest and most succinct description of a Yeoman:

‘My father was a yeoman, and had no lands of his own, only he had a farm of three or four pound by year’ where he tilled enough to keep ‘half a dozen men’. In addition to a ‘walk for a hundred sheep’ his mother kept a dairy and ‘milked thirty kine’

He came from Thurcaston in Leicestershire, right in the middle of England. Latimer was one of those who met at the White Horse pub in Cambridge, which became known as ‘Litle German’, converted by Thomas Bilney. Latimer explained how he changed his views, and it is an example of one way in which some changed their views:

Master Bilney, or rather Saint Bilney, that suffered death for God’s word sake, the same Bilney was the instrument whereby God called me to knowledge; for I may thank him, next to God, for that knowledge that I have in the word of God. For I was as obstinate a papist as any was in England, insomuch that when I should be made bachelor of divinity, my whole oration went against Philip Melancthon and against his opinions. Bilney heard me at that time, and perceived that I was zealous without knowledge; and he came to me afterward in my study, and desired me, for God’s sake, to hear his confession. I did so: and, to say the truth, by his confession I learned more than before in many years. So from that time forward I began to smell the word of God, and forsook the school-doctors and such fooleries.

Latimer became one of the greatest evangelical speakers of his age. Like many of his fellows, while he took enormous risks in his peaching, when questioned he twisted, and turned and equivocated to avoid being silenced or burned. So for example; in 1525 the Bishop of Ely came unannounced to Cambridge to hear Latimer preach in the university church, no doubt hoping to catch the lad red handed. Seeing him enter, Latimer changed his text, and preached a sermon extempore At the end, the bishop thanked Latimer, and asked him to preach against Martin Luther’s doctrine. The quick thining Latimer replied that he could not refute what he was prohibited from reading. The bishop muttered darkly “I perceive that you somewhat smell of the pan, Mr. Latymer; you will repent this gear some day.”

In 1531, Latimer acquired a protector in the form of Anne Boleyn, who gave him a living in Wiltshire in the West Country He used it as a springboard to preach more boldly, and on 11 March 1532 he was caught and called before convocation to face charges that he had impugned purgatory, prayers for the dead, the intercession of saints, pilgrimages, fasting, and the veneration of the crucifix and other images. Latimer appealed to the King as the highest authority under God; he was excommunicated and imprisoned, and forced into a full recantation; but his loyalty to the king won his release in April.

In 1533, Latimer grew bolder still, and recorded a famous triumph in a series of radical sermons at Bristol resulting in accusations that he’d done as much damage as Luther. Words such as these caused an enormous stir:

‘Dead images are not to be prayed unto; for they have neither ears to hear withal, nor tongue to speak withal, nor heart to think withal … . They can neither help me nor mine ox; neither my head nor my tooth; nor work any miracle for me … I would not have them so costly and curiously gilded and decked … . The blood of martyrs has no effect upon the way of redemption. We may pray to God ourselves without making suit first to them.’

All of this must have produced a mixture of exhilaration and terror as the old order was threatened, and in return threatened death; a flavour comes across when in 1535 Thomas More saw Latimer in a high-spirited moment in the garden of Lambeth Palace. Latimer was ‘very merry’ and laughing as he cast his arms around Cranmer’s chaplains in triumph. By 1536, Latimer was Bishop of Worcester and More was dead; but .the evangelical cause was very far from won, and Henry’s views would change with bewildering complexity. In 1539, Latimer would be removed as Bishop of Worcester, and be thrown into the Tower.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/12/03/232-evangelicals/feed/0231b Medieval Castles by George of The World of Castleshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/11/26/231b-medieval-castles-by-george-of-castlesworlds/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/11/26/231b-medieval-castles-by-george-of-castlesworlds/#respondSun, 26 Nov 2017 11:00:55 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=10957Read More]]>George gives a survey of the medieval castle, from its first appearance in Europe to its eventual demise as gunpowder worked its changes.

The Medieval Castle

Mention the Middle Ages and most people immediately visualize a great stone castle, surrounded by a sturdy moat, and protected by Knights on horseback and legions of spearmen. Castles are some of the most popular historic sites on Earth, and together with the great cathedrals are one of the most evocative features of the Medieval Age in Europe.

Castles exert a powerful hold on our imagination. They embody the romantic ideal of chivalry, of epic battles, of loyalty and personal sacrifice to crown and country.

What did a typical Medieval Castle look like?

First, we must understand that no two stone castles had the same layout, and every castle’s design largely depended upon the local landscape, skills, resources and the purpose and function of each castle.

Some castles were designed to culture an air of luxury and grandeur, while others were built for purely militaristic pursuits, with strong walls that could be easily defended and provide shelter for the local population.

Most medieval castles did share some common features, so let’s take a look at some of the most important aspects of stone castle construction.

The Keep

The keep was the heart of every medieval castle and the most strongly defended point before the introduction of concentric defense. The great innovation of stone castles was the replacement of the wooden tower of the earlier motte-and-bailey castle with a taller and stronger tower rendered in stone.

The keep was the residence of the lord who owned the castle and his family, but it could also be used by his guests or representatives. Stone buildings provided much more luxurious accommodation compared to the earlier wooden towers. They included grand fireplaces for heat and for comfort, larger and more comfortable rooms and better protection from the rain and cold.

In later medieval times, Castles began to transform into sumptuous buildings, and nobles began to live in more luxurious chambers, with the keep used exclusively as a stronghold.

Besides providing accommodation for the lords of the castle, the keep was also the last line of defense. The sheer thickness of the stone walls served as protection against siege engines such as catapults or trebuchets. In addition, stone keeps were usually tall enough to make scaling with ladders or movable wooden scaffolding difficult, while providing an excellent viewpoint for archers shooting at attacking raiders.

The keep was the heart of any stone castle and usually the first part to be built. Radiating out from it, we would find many other buildings and further fortifications.

The Bailey

The bailey was a fortified enclosure containing the castle’s domestic buildings. As opposed to early motte-and-bailey castles, where the bailey was normally surrounded by a wooden palisade, stone castles were protected by a thick stone wall, wrapping around the entire castle, and enclosing both the Keep and the Bailey.

While the keep was the residence of the Lord in charge, the bailey was the home of the rest of the Lord’s entourage that also needed protection. The bailey could contain many buildings such as the kitchens, the stables, the chapel, the bakery etc.

Water was supplied by a well or by a cistern. However, many times water was highly polluted and it was wiser to drink beer, which was sterilized during the brewing process. That is one reason why beer was so important in medieval life; in fact, many castles had their own breweries.

Next, let’s see some of the domestic buildings found inside the bailey.

The Kitchens

Entertaining guests was an important part of the castle’s social life. Many nobles aimed to impress their guests and show of the castle’s grandeur, and large elaborate kitchens demonstrated a Lord’s wealth to his important visitors.

The most elaborate kitchens were set to cook the fish and the game that was caught when hunting in the castle grounds. This would have given the castle an additional prestige as hunting was a very popular activity.

The Great Hall

The Great Hall was the focus of social life in any Medieval Castle. It was usually the largest and grandest room, where the Lord of the house held feasts and banquets in honor of his important guests.

When a great banquet was held, the Great Hall was carefully prepared to impress the audience. The guests of honor were seated in front of the hall, near the Lord of the castle and his wife. Seating arrangements were strictly controlled, with the most important guests seated closest to the Noble Lord. The further you were seated from them, the less important you were.

The Stables

Horses were extremely valuable in Medieval times. They were essential in battle but also used as means of transportation and communication. A powerful Lord would have owned many war-horses. Large stables also included haylofts and space for the grooms to live and rooms where equipment was stored and basic repairs were undertaken.

Other defensive features

The keep was the castle’s primary defense, but it was by no means the only one. Other fortifications were added to enhance the castle’s defensive capabilities and make an attack against it as difficult as possible.

The curtain wall

If an attacked made it across the moat, they would then come up against the curtain wall. This wall usually wrapped right around the outside of the castle to protect all of the domestic buildings and the keep. Curtain walls had to be tall enough to make scaling the walls with ladders difficult and thick enough to withstand bombardment from siege engines.

A stone wall could have been as thick as 3m and as high as 12m, although sizes varied greatly between castles. To further increase the wall’s strength, the center of the wall was made using hard rocks and rubble, while the two outer parts were built by laying gigantic stones, similar to how bricks are laid today. The rubble was, therefore ‘sandwiched’ between the two layers of stone-wall and this increased the durability of the wall.

On top of the wall, walkways were designed to allow defenders to rain missiles on enemies below, while special stone-parapets (known as battlements) gave the defenders further protection from incoming arrows and other projectiles.

The Gatehouse

The Gatehouse was the weakest part in the defense of any castle. No matter how strong the outer walls were, attackers could always use the main route into the castle as the focal point of their attack.

Castle designers had to think of a way to overcome this major problem. Obviously, you could not build a castle without the main entrance, as people and supplies needed a way to walk in and out of the castle in times of peace.

Consequently, fortifications and obstacles were built around the entrance to medieval castles to deter attackers. To protect the entrance, defensive towers were built on each side of the gate. The passage through the gatehouse was lengthened and a series of defenses were designed inside the gatehouse to make a direct assault more challenging.

For example, a portcullis (which comes from the French word “porte coulissante”, meaning sliding door) was a wooden or (more often) metal grill which was lowered from the ceiling in front of the attackers to block the passage. A gatehouse could have been equipped with one or more portcullises.

It was not uncommon to trap an intruder between two portcullises: first, the portcullis at the end of the gatehouse was lowered in front of the attacker, and then, before he could escape, the one behind him was also lowered, trapping the intruder between the two metal grills where archers could fire upon him and the attacker had limited opportunity to defend himself.

The passage through the gatehouse was often riddled with traps. ‘Murder holes’ were openings in the ceiling of the passage used by the defenders to pour boiling water (oil was too expensive and hard to obtain), rocks and other heavy objects onto attackers. Water could also be poured down these holes to extinguish fires.

Arrow slits were small openings in the stone wall through which archers defending the castle would fire against enemies inside the gatehouse.

A gatehouse with these fortifications would have presented a very difficult proposition indeed.

As we will see, many castles were surrounded by water-filled moats, meaning that attackers would have had to find a way to cross these moats before even reaching the gatehouse.

Moats and Water Defenses

Most British Castles are found in low-lying open areas and few had the chance to take advantage of natural defenses, such as perching upon rocky outcrops (Goodrich Castle or Stirling Castle) or being protected by sheer cliffs (Dunnottar Castle).

However, rather than seeing this as a problem, Castle designers used what they had to enhance the Castle features. In many cases, this involved using local water resources to build a moat.

A moat was a defensive ditch built around the castle, and it could be either dry or filled with water. They were usually crossed by a drawbridge which was removed (lifted with a simple crank) when attackers were nearby.

First, it forced large siege-engines or catapults further away from the Castle walls, decreasing the accuracy and force of incoming projectiles. It also prevented large movable wooden scaffolding from being moved up to the walls, which would allow attackers easy access to the battlements.

Secondly, the moat could prevent attackers from burrowing beneath the castle to undermine the outer walls.

Few castles had the advantage of a fresh-flowing natural moat; this meant that most often moats were made by damming nearby rivers to create a stagnant pond around the castle. Unfortunately, all the sewage from inside the castle would have been directed straight into the stagnant moat, so you can imagine the smell!

In later castles, moats were designed to make the castle appear grander and more impressive, rather than have a real defensive role. One of the best examples is Bodiam Castle where the moat is now regarded as an ornamental feature rather than a defense.

Turrets and Towers

In the early stone castles, the keep was the biggest and most important tower, while the rest of the towers (if there were any) had a secondary role. Generally, these towers were positioned along the curtain wall to allow archers to fire at enemy attackers outside the wall, or along the wall if they managed to make it that far.

In later designs, however, the towers became an integral part of the castle’s defensive strategy. The new approach was to design castles on a symmetrical plan with towers on each of the corners.

Originally, towers were built in a square shape. However, attackers soon found out that by burrowing under one of the corners of the square foundations, they could undermine the entire tower, with devastating consequences for the defenders. Castle designers responded by building round towers, with no corners which could be undermined. That is why late Medieval Castles had circular towers.

In later Medieval times, castle design evolved and by the end of the 12th century a new type of castle had appeared: the concentric castle. Concentric castles represent one of the high points in Medieval military architecture.

These castles were usually built without a central keep, on a square or polygonal plan, with towers facing all directions and a double curtain wall surrounding them. At their peak-time, concentric castles were so formidable that attacking them directly was deemed hopeless.

However, with the advent of gunpowder and the development of new weapons and tactics to attack them, true castles began to fall from fashion and their original defensive purpose was taken over by civil buildings such as star-forts, towers or bastions. They were eventually succeeded by country houses and palaces as high-status residences.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/11/26/231b-medieval-castles-by-george-of-castlesworlds/feed/0231a English Music and the Reformation by Heather Teyskohttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/11/19/231a-english-music-and-the-reformation-by-heather-teysko/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/11/19/231a-english-music-and-the-reformation-by-heather-teysko/#commentsSun, 19 Nov 2017 10:58:36 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=10702Read More]]>Heather Teysko of the Renaissance English history podcast gives a wonderful and musical introduction to the English choral tradition at the time of the Reformation.

And finally, if you missed the Tudor Summit– the online Tudor smorgasbord of talks from leading Tudor historians, bloggers, and podcasters (Tony Riches, Sarah Gristwood, and lots more…) you can still get the videos here, and I’d invite you to check it out… it was such good fun, we’ll be doing it again in March with new speakers!The 2017 Tudor Summit

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/11/19/231a-english-music-and-the-reformation-by-heather-teysko/feed/3Scandal of Christendom results and prizeshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/11/12/scandal-of-christendom-results-and-prizes/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/11/12/scandal-of-christendom-results-and-prizes/#commentsSun, 12 Nov 2017 10:57:38 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=11032Read More]]>The Scandal of Christendom is all over! Find out who won what on the podcast, or read on. But thank you to all of you for taking part. I had a lovely time, it was great seeing all the comments and getting so much feedback.

The Result

It was a gimme I have to say. If I am going to do this again I am going to have to think of more contentious questions. 86% of you went for A; the overwhelming consensus is that we are not bigging Anne Boleyn up, this is someone who consciously and actively made a real difference to the course of English history, and not simply due to her existence.

It was the same for the members debate as it happens; Members had an additional question and prize about who killed Anne – was it Henry, was she the victim of Cromwell and factional in fighting, or was she in fact guilty of sleeping around. 81% reckoned it was Henry – he just got tired of her and told Cromwell to get rid of her. Doesn’t say much for the world’s opinion of Henry I have to say. Only 10% though it was Crommers, and 4% that she was guilty.

The Prize Winners

We have 4 prizes…and I have devised a suitably complicated way of distributing them.

The first placed person will have first pick from all 4

The second will pick from the remaining 3 prizes

Third place will pick from the remaining two

The fourth will have the remaining fabulous prize.

First placed person is: Mag Cottee

Second placed person is: Chris Sandys

Third placed person is: Jan Scott

Fourth placed person: Pierre Michel Busque

Please get in touch with me at david54031@gmail.com as soon as you can with your choice! Especially you Mag since all the other follow you…

The prizes (just to remind you)

We have 4 prizes. I know. Amazing. I’ll do some complicated thing where the first out of the hat gets to chose, the second to chose from the remaining 3 and so on. To find out more about he prizes, go to the Prizes page.

In 1534, Anne was pregnant. In the excited certainty of a male heir, a medallion was designed in celebration; sadly, Anne miscarried and the project was abandoned. Then along came a stone carver, Lucy Churchill, who painstakingly reconstructed the image. This prize is therefore a copy of that original medallion, the most authentic likeness we have. Don’t take my word for it:

‘Lucy Churchill’s reconstruction of The Moost Happi portrait medal is the best image we are ever likely to have of Anne Boleyn.’ (Professor David Starkey)

‘Lucy Churchill’s brilliant achievement has brought us as close to the real Anne Boleyn as we shall ever be able to get.’ (Professor Eric Ives)

‘Through meticulous research Lucy Churchill has created an authentic replica of the medal of Anne Boleyn, as it would have looked originally. A must for anyone interested in Anne Boleyn!’ (Alison Weir)

The story of how Lucy researched and reconstructed the medallion, and the other exquisite carvings she has done, as as interesting as the medallion itself. Go and have a look at Lucy Churchill’s website

Some of the arguments about Anne Boleyn’s life and career, to help you make you make your choice and vote on the History of England Facebook page. And while you are here why not support the podcast and get extra shedcasts by clicking here and becoming a member?

Until 10th November, hop along to the Facebook Page, where you’ll find a post on which you can comment. It will have the question below. You can then add a comment, and enter one of three votes into your comment:

A: Agree with the Statement

B: Disagree with the statement

C: Abstain

Everyone who votes will be entered into the prize draw.

The motion

The History of England agrees with Eric Ives that Anne Boleyn was “a maker of history” and rejects Catherine of Aragon’s insult that she was nothing more than the “Scandal of Christendom”.

To agree you will probably tends to agree with the majority (not necessarily all) of the statements below:

Anne did not cynically entrap Henry solely because she wanted power; she and Henry shared had a genuinely loving relationship

Anne was an active and effective player in court politics, rather than simply its victim

Anne was a genuine leader and principal of change, rather than just a catalyst because of the king’s desire for her; she played an active part in leading, influencing and shaping policies such as the strategy to break with Rome.

She promoted evangelical ideas and reform; and that did so from personal conviction and piety – not just because they increased her chances of becoming Queen.

Her treatment of Catherine of Aragon and Mary was as much due to the king’s views and the necessities of the situation as to any personal vindictiveness.

The prizes

We have 4 prizes. I know. Amazing. I’ll do some complicated thing where the first out of the hat gets to chose, the second to chose from the remaining 3 and so on. To find out more about he prizes, go to the Prizes page.

In 1534, Anne was pregnant. In the excited certainty of a male heir, a medallion was designed in celebration; sadly, Anne miscarried and the project was abandoned. Then along came a stone carver, Lucy Churchill, who painstakingly reconstructed the image. This prize is therefore a copy of that original medallion, the most authentic likeness we have. Don’t take my word for it:

‘Lucy Churchill’s reconstruction of The Moost Happi portrait medal is the best image we are ever likely to have of Anne Boleyn.’ (Professor David Starkey)

‘Lucy Churchill’s brilliant achievement has brought us as close to the real Anne Boleyn as we shall ever be able to get.’ (Professor Eric Ives)

‘Through meticulous research Lucy Churchill has created an authentic replica of the medal of Anne Boleyn, as it would have looked originally. A must for anyone interested in Anne Boleyn!’ (Alison Weir)

The story of how Lucy researched and reconstructed the medallion, and the other exquisite carvings she has done, as as interesting as the medallion itself. Go and have a look at Lucy Churchill’s website

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/29/231-the-scandal-of-christendom-debate/feed/6230a The Fall of Anne Boleyn by Claire Ridgwayhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/25/230a-the-fall-of-anne-boleyn-by-claire-ridgway/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/25/230a-the-fall-of-anne-boleyn-by-claire-ridgway/#commentsWed, 25 Oct 2017 07:48:41 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=9768Read More]]>The fall of Queen Anne Boleyn and who was responsible has, as Claire Ridgway remarks, always divided historians and probably always will. Here Claire discusses some of the theories – and the view she has developed over years of careful study.

Claire Ridgway

Claire is the author of a load of best-selling books. They include George Boleyn, The Fall of Anne Boleyn and others. She was also involved in the English translation and editing of Edmond Bapst’s 19th century French biography of George Boleyn.

Claire’s also created the brilliant website The Anne Boleyn Files. It’s got more information that you could dare to hope for, and I’ve referred to it throughout my podcasts – and creating a mini index for a few topics. Claire worked in education and freelance writing before creating the website and becoming a full-time history researcher, blogger and author.

The Anne Boleyn Files is known for its historical accuracy and for Claire’s mission to get to the truth behind Anne Boleyn’s story. Her writing is easy-to-read and conversational, and readers often comment on how reading Claire’s books is like having a coffee with her and chatting about history.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/25/230a-the-fall-of-anne-boleyn-by-claire-ridgway/feed/1230 The Execution of Anne Boleynhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/22/230-the-execution-of-anne-boleyn/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/22/230-the-execution-of-anne-boleyn/#commentsSun, 22 Oct 2017 12:59:41 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=9733Read More]]>On May Day 1536 at Greenwich, Anne and Henry could put their worries aside. Everything was well with the world as they watched the joust. Then Henry left suddenly and was seen arguing with Henry Norris. Find out what happened next.

Natalie Grueninger is a researcher, writer and educator, living in Australia with her husband and two children. In 2009 she created On the Tudor Trail, a website dedicated to documenting historic sites and buildings associated with Anne Boleyn and sharing information about the life and times of Henry VIII’s second wife – which again I can heartily recommend, and have been on to many times.

Her first non-fiction book, co-authored with Sarah Morris, “In the Footsteps of Anne Boleyn”, was published by Amberley, published in the UK in September 2013. Book number two in the series, “In the Footsteps of the Six Wives of Henry VIII”, was released in the UK in March 2016. She also completed “Discovering Tudor London”, which was published in the UK by The History Press in August 2017.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/18/229a-the-progress-of-the-tudor-court-by-natalie-grueninger/feed/2229 The Reign of Queen Anne Boleynhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/15/229-the-reign-of-queen-anne-boleyn/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/15/229-the-reign-of-queen-anne-boleyn/#respondSun, 15 Oct 2017 11:23:12 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=9497Read More]]>We discuss what we know about Anne as Queen consort, and chart the progress of the break with a thousand years of tradition in the declaration of royal supremacy.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/15/229-the-reign-of-queen-anne-boleyn/feed/0228 Mistress Anne Boleyn, Scandal of Christendomhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/08/228-mistress-anne-boleyn-scandal-of-christendom/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/08/228-mistress-anne-boleyn-scandal-of-christendom/#commentsSun, 08 Oct 2017 11:20:23 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=9148Read More]]>The start of 4 weeks of fun, debate, voting and prizes as we consider the life of Anne Boleyn and decide whether Catherine was being fair in describing Anne as the Scandal of Christendom. This week a summary of the life of Anne to 1532. You can find out more here about the Scandal of Christendom debate.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/08/228-mistress-anne-boleyn-scandal-of-christendom/feed/2227 The Reformation Parliamenthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/01/227-the-reformation-parliament/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/01/227-the-reformation-parliament/#commentsSun, 01 Oct 2017 15:46:01 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=9029Read More]]>After Wolsey’s fall was a period of stalemate; but between 1529 and 1532, Henry’s thoughts crystalised, Anne became to be openly at his side – and a new weapon joined the king – the exocet that was Thomas Cromwell.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/10/01/227-the-reformation-parliament/feed/4226 The Great Wetherhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/24/226-the-great-wether/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/24/226-the-great-wether/#respondSun, 24 Sep 2017 07:13:48 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=8830Read More]]>In 1529 the campaign for the King’s great matter, his divorce came to a climax. Wolsey persuaded the Pope to allow a court to be held in England under Cardinals Campeggio and Wolsey. On its success or failure would rest Wolsey’s own future.

Catherine of Aragon’s speech at the Legatine court

Catherine played the legatine court beautifully – and of course quite probably her words came straight from the heart. But to see Catherine as a simple victim I think underestimates her intelligence, determination and sheer bloody-mindedness. In 1528, she had turned down an idea form cardinal Campeggio that might very well have squared the circle for all; the idea that she retire to a nunnery. Such an option would allow her to keep her entourage, her honour, would actually have matched her personal piety and lifestyle, have saved her daughter from the threat of illegitimacy – and in all probability kept England within the Catholic church.

But Catherine had been born a Princess, married a king and become a Queen, and so she would remain. Here then, are her words.

“Sir, I beseech you for all the loves that hath been between us, and for the love of God, let me have justice and right, take of me some pity and compassion, for I am a poor woman and a stranger born out of your dominion, I have here no assured friend, and much less indifferent counsel: I flee to you as to the head of justice within this realm. Alas! Sir, wherein have I offended you, or what occasion of displeasure have I designed against your will and pleasure? Intending (as I perceive) to put me from you, I take God and all the world to witness, that I have been to you a true and humble wife, ever conformable to your will and pleasure, that never said or did anything to the contrary thereof, being always well pleased and contented with all things wherein you had any delight or dalliance, whether it were in little or much, I never grudged in word or countenance, or showed a visage or spark of discontentation. I loved all those whom you loved only for your sake, whether I had cause or no; and whether they were my friends or my enemies. This twenty years I have been your true wife or more, and by me you have had divers children, although it hath pleased God to call them out of this world, which hath been no default in me.

And when you had me at the first, I take God to be my judge, I was a true maid without touch of man; and whether it be true or no, I put it to your conscience. If there be any just cause by the law that you can allege against me, either of dishonesty or any other impediment to banish and put me from you, I am well content to depart, to my great shame and dishonour; and if there be none, then here I most lowly beseech you let me remain in my former estate, and received justice at your princely hand. The king your father was in the time of his reign of such estimation through the world for his excellent wisdom, that he was accounted and called of all men the second Solomon; and my father Ferdinand, King of Spain, who was esteemed to be one of the wittiest princes that reigned in Spain many years before, were both wise and excellent kings in wisdom and princely behaviour. It is not therefore to be doubted, but that they were elected and gathered as wise counsellors about them as to their high discretions was thought meet. Also, as me seemeth there was in those days as wise, as well-learned men, and men of good judgement as be present in both realms, who thought then the marriage between you and me good and lawful Therefore is it a wonder tome what new inventions are now invented against me, that never intended but honesty. And cause me to stand to the order and judgement of this new court, wherein you may do me much wrong, if you intend any cruelty; for you may condemn me for lack of sufficient answer, having no indifferent counsel, but such as be assigned me, with whose wisdom and learning I am not acquainted. You must consider that they cannot be indifferent counsellors for my part which be your subjects, and taken out of your own council before, wherein they be made privy, and dare not, for your displeasure, disobey your will and intent, being once made privy thereto. Therefore, I most humbly require you, in the way of charity, and for the love of God, who is the just judge, to spare the extremity of this new court, until I may be advertised what way and order my friends in Spain will advise me to take. And if you will not extend to me so much indifferent favour, your pleasure then be fulfilled, and to God I commit my case!”

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/24/226-the-great-wether/feed/0225a Reformation by Otto and Lukehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/22/225a-reformation-by-otto-and-luke/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/22/225a-reformation-by-otto-and-luke/#commentsFri, 22 Sep 2017 04:39:38 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=8759Read More]]>Otto and Luke follow up the episode 224 with their own perspective on the Reformation. It’s a father and son bonding session, ‘hey son let’s have a great time and shoot the breeze together…about the Reformation…’ you know, the normal way you get the conversation flowing with the youth of today.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/22/225a-reformation-by-otto-and-luke/feed/15225 Matters Great and Personalhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/18/225-matters-great-and-personal/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/18/225-matters-great-and-personal/#commentsMon, 18 Sep 2017 05:01:23 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=8600Read More]]>The king’s Great Matter as it was to be called, outraged and divided Christendom, and has been dividing us ever since. What motivated it? Who was responsible? The debate starts here.

Some of the big questions about the King’s Great Matter

We have all been divided for so long on so many questions in the fascinating subject of Henry VIII’s divorce. But here are 3 of the bigger ones.

Why? Why did Henry decide to get divorced from his Queen, Catherine of Aragon? Was it, as Catholics of the time and since would have us believe, just pure and simple lust for Anne? Or, as Henry would have you believe, was he motivated by a horrified understanding that his marriage was against God’s laws and therefore cursed? Or was he motivated by his responsibility as a king to deliver his people from the chaos and death of civil war, and make sure there was a son to inherit the throne when he died?

Who? Who was it that drove the whole thing, strategically? Some have argued that poor old Henry was driven to it by the ‘goggle-eyed whore’, Anne Boleyn, as Margaret Chanselor described her. They would have it that she nagged and manipulated the poor lamb until eventually he gave in and broke with an institution he had until then revered. Others have seen Henry as the decision maker, however prevaricating he might have been and even though he had Cromwell there as an implementer. While others yet have seen Cromwell, later on in the process, as sneakily introducing evangelical reform by the back door while Henry busied himself hunting small animals and women of various sizes.

What? What kind of a person was Anne and how should we view her example? As a proto-feminist hero, or a vindictive manipulative politician, or simply a woman of her time?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/18/225-matters-great-and-personal/feed/2224 Deadly Poisonhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/10/224-deadly-poison/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/10/224-deadly-poison/#commentsSun, 10 Sep 2017 13:25:54 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=8497In 1520 the Pope threatened an obscure Augustinian monk with excommunication. Why ? What happened next? And how did the English react?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/10/224-deadly-poison/feed/4223 Venality or vitality?https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/03/223-venality-or-vitality/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/03/223-venality-or-vitality/#commentsSun, 03 Sep 2017 15:11:34 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=8260Read More]]>The traditional story of the English Reformation has been of a rotten, moribund, venal church, just waiting to be toppled by reformers, the pyre ignited by Luther’s teachings. But was the late medieval church really in such a rotten state?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/09/03/223-venality-or-vitality/feed/2222a The Tower of London by James Holdstockhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/27/222a-the-tower-of-london-by-james-holdstock/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/27/222a-the-tower-of-london-by-james-holdstock/#respondSun, 27 Aug 2017 08:21:14 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=8192Read More]]>James Holdstock is a big fan of The Tower of London; he talks about a fortress which has a history as winding, bloody, mysterious and inspiring as England’s, and is a must for any visitor to the capital.

Incidentally, you can also find the podcast on iTunes or Stitcher ; or use the RSS url to download to your device. The world is your lobster, in that respect anyway.

To Murder a King

James has a passion for medieval history and trying to get kids involved. As well as dressing up in chainmail and wielding huge axes, he has written a historical fiction book for young adults. It’s a murder mystery set at the Tower of London in 1199. If you know any kids that you’d like to share your love of history with, then buy themthisbook (or if you want to buy from the US, then…go here instead!)

Better still, from time to time James will run book giveaways so ‘Like’ his author Facebook pageand you and your kid, grandkid or great grandkid will be kept informed!

Also he has prepared a version of The History of the Tower, written for young people. You can find it on hisblog.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/27/222a-the-tower-of-london-by-james-holdstock/feed/0222 From Hapsburg to Valoishttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/21/222-from-hapsburg-to-valois/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/21/222-from-hapsburg-to-valois/#commentsMon, 21 Aug 2017 05:15:15 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=8171Read More]]>The diplomacy of the early 1520s culminated at Pavia, with the ruin of French hopes – and also English as Hapsburg for a while reigned supreme. Domestic politics saw Wolsey discredited for the first time, and the Boleyns arrive at court.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/21/222-from-hapsburg-to-valois/feed/2221 The Finest Buckhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/13/221-the-finest-buck/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/13/221-the-finest-buck/#commentsSun, 13 Aug 2017 10:04:48 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=8102Read More]]>Henry had shown a hint of the man he would become in 1510 by the execution of Empson and Dudley. In 1521, the Duke of Buckingham was in his sights, as Europe’s Universal Peace sank beneath the waves.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/13/221-the-finest-buck/feed/3220a An Oasis Discoveredhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/06/220a-an-oasis-discovered/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/06/220a-an-oasis-discovered/#commentsSun, 06 Aug 2017 15:28:04 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=7535Here’s my story of the church St Bartholomew the Grand and its founder. There are pictures and the text at St Bartholomew the Great

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/08/06/220a-an-oasis-discovered/feed/6220 Disguisingshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/30/220-disguisings/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/30/220-disguisings/#commentsSun, 30 Jul 2017 10:10:32 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=7840Read More]]>It is in the reign of Henry VIII that we first hear of the ‘masque’ – entertainment that drew from Mummers, Mystery plays, and ‘disguisings’. We talk about Anne and Mary Boleyn’s education – and Shakespeare and the word ‘bump’

This second on is the music…since the Historic Royal Palaces could obviously only afford one pipe!

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/30/220-disguisings/feed/2219 Cloth of Goldhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/23/219-cloth-of-gold/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/23/219-cloth-of-gold/#commentsSun, 23 Jul 2017 18:25:42 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=7530Read More]]>Enter Thomas Boleyn, courtier, and the realities of being a courtier. And the field of the cloth of Gold; Henry and Wolsey’s mission to uphold the treaty of universal peace.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/23/219-cloth-of-gold/feed/4218a Witchcraft in Tudor England by Sam Humehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/09/218a-witchcraft-in-tudor-england-by-sam-hume/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/09/218a-witchcraft-in-tudor-england-by-sam-hume/#commentsSun, 09 Jul 2017 11:24:02 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=7458Read More]]>The 16th and 17th centuries saw a surge in worry about witchcraft through most of Europe. Sam gives us a survey of how fear of witchcraft affected England.

Sam also has an entire podcast devoted to the subject – and I heartily recommend it to you. You can find it on iTunes, or go to thee website The History of Witchcraft.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/09/218a-witchcraft-in-tudor-england-by-sam-hume/feed/1218 Universal Peacehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/02/218-universal-peace/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/02/218-universal-peace/#commentsSun, 02 Jul 2017 07:41:58 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=7220Read More]]>Wolsey had tried war with France, they’d tried war by proxy, they’d tried peace. In 1518 the most remarkable of their plans – the Treaty of Universal peace where 20 states guaranteed the peace of Europe.

In 1518, Maximilian finally shuffled off the mortal coil, and the election of the holy Roman Emperor took pl;ace in a blizzard of bribes. There were 3 candidates – Henry VIII, Francis I and Charles V. Essentially it was Charles’s to lose, and he didn’t. The resulting Hapsburg Empire was truly bind moggling. Have a look.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/07/02/218-universal-peace/feed/3217 The Cardinal’s Hathttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/06/25/217-the-cardinals-hat/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/06/25/217-the-cardinals-hat/#commentsSun, 25 Jun 2017 15:27:55 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=6917Read More]]>Being made a Cardinal in 1515 gave Wolsey the perfect opportunity to give the vainglorious side of his nature full reign. He made full use of it.

We have three topics in today’s episode; Henry and his attempt to mobilise Europe against the French; Catherine and her changing attitude, with a suspicion of weariness creeping in. And then thirdly, we have a weekly word from Mary Campbell, about given names of the period – such as Anne, Mary and Catherine.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/06/25/217-the-cardinals-hat/feed/6214a The End of Roman Britain by Ed McWatthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/06/04/214a-the-end-of-roman-britain-by-edmcwatt/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/06/04/214a-the-end-of-roman-britain-by-edmcwatt/#commentsSun, 04 Jun 2017 14:05:39 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=6097Read More]]>Children’s author Ed McWatt and his perspective on the Roman Brexit – Rexit you might say, and how the end of Roman Britain might have felt to those at the time. And I find out that I’m not Spartacus. Darn.

As I say, Ed is a children’s author and has written a book set in the period. If you want to find out more, here’s a link to The Silver Empress.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/06/04/214a-the-end-of-roman-britain-by-edmcwatt/feed/2216 Love and Marriagehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/31/216-love-and-marriage/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/31/216-love-and-marriage/#respondWed, 31 May 2017 13:41:24 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=6560Read More]]>The story of a love affair – probably. In 1514 Henry married off his 18 year old sister to the gouty, siphilitic, toothless 50+ year old Louis and sent her to France., She came back a year later married to someone else entirely

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/31/216-love-and-marriage/feed/0215 Hero of Warhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/26/215-hero-of-war/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/26/215-hero-of-war/#commentsFri, 26 May 2017 18:13:14 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=6452Read More]]>In 1513 there were two English victories. One of them would have a profound effect on English history. The other one was mainly a mad dash in pursuit of a bunch of cavalry eager to escape.

The Battle of the Spurs, 16th August 1513 and Flodden 9th September

The battle of the spurs was not completely irrelevant, even though it was little more than a skirmish. It gave Henry VIII a reputation he had lacked previously among the crowned heads of Europe. But at most its impact was short lived. The impact of Flodden on the othjer hand would be felt into the reign of Elizabeth I. It was a crushing defeat for the Scots and their talented king James IV. It presaged years of instability that would culminate in the death of Mary Queen of Scots at Fotheringhay in 1587.

The image below is rather good; it comes from the Scottish Clans website. It shows the difference between the ratrher antiquated English soldier and the Scottish soldier, equipped with the formidable pike. But James IV threw away the advantage his military investment in arms, tactics and artillery had given him; because he insisted on fighting and dying with his men.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/26/215-hero-of-war/feed/2214 The Road to Warhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/18/214-the-road-to-war/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/18/214-the-road-to-war/#commentsThu, 18 May 2017 15:47:40 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=6241Read More]]>The path of Renaissance diplomacy was both torturous and without scruple; as Henry finds out as he thirsts for glory.

Historians have identified the 16th and 17th centuries as a time of revolutionary change in Europe, driven by military technology. We talk a bit about that, and about the personalities Henry VIII was up against.

Dramatis Personae

Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Julius II (1443-1513), the warrior pope as he is known. Not for him the life of poverty otherworldliness – though to be fair such a thing was scarcely possible for a medieval pope. Julius had thrown the smallest morsel of such an idea to the winds, however. He had concluded that the Papacy would never be safe from the intervention of foreign powers until it had the lands to defend itself and dominated Italy. He would do this by aligning with foreign powers; he’d allied against the invading Charles VIII, but now was after Venice in northern Italy with the help of the League of Cambrai, in which was included France.

In Spain, we have the reboubtable villain, 59 year old, King father-of-the-bride Ferdinand of Aragon (1452-1516), who through his rather ruthless treatment of his daughter Queen Johanna, queen of Castile after the death of her mother Isabel , was now effectively king of all Spain. He was also king of Sicily, and was the winner of the southern Italian wars Charles VIII had kicked off, and therefore king of Naples. Say what you like about Ferdinand, and unreliable snake might be one of the nicer things you might say about the man’s morality, Ferdinand was an extraordinarily successful ruler. Waiting in the wings is his grandson Charles, underage king of Castile, successor to Aragon when Ferdinand pops off, but also heir through his Dad Philip of Burgundy to the Hapsburg lands.

James IV of Scotland (1473-1513) 38 Year old James has a great reputation; he was a renaissance prince trailing a love and patronage of art and culture in his wake, and an effective political operator. The Spaniard Pedro de Ayala was thoroughly impressed by him remarking that, quote, ‘his knowledge of languages in wonderful’, also remarking ‘The King speaks, besides, the language of the savages who live in some parts of Scotland and on the islands’. This seems a little rude to the gentle inhabitants of the highlands and Islands of Scotland, and I would like to formerly apologise on Pedro’s behalf. I am sure he was tired when he wrote it, and now heartily regrets such language. James IV was not a stay at home sort of lad either, and came to the throne every bit as keen to prove himself in war and glory; he enthusiastically espoused the cause of Perkin Warbeck until he realised he’d bought a pup and retired in disgust. He’d spent a considerable proportion of his income building up a Scottish Navy, which the English viewed with some alarm. Henry VII had courted him, and he’d married his daughter and Henry VIII’s sister Margaret, so you might think that the old rifts between England and Scotland would have been healed, and both have been contemplating a combined entry into the Six nations rugby tournament in love and amity. In which case you would be sadly, sadly mistaken. The auld alliance, Scotland and France stick England, would be as powerful a draw as every to James IV.

Louis XII (1462-1515), is just shy of 50 in 1511. He’d been personally involved as a military commander in the Italian wars of his predecessor, Charles VIII, a struggle with Aragon and Spain for the control of the Kingdom of Naples sown there at the southern end of the Italian peninsula. Charles had eventually been forced to run like the proverbial rabbit, or run for home as Lindisfarne might have had it. But it had left the French holding Milan, the mighty duchy of northern Italy. It had also left Louis wanting more as far as Italy was concerned.

We should also mention Maximilian I (1459-1519), Hapsburg and Holy Roman Emperor. Through marriage to Mary of Burgundy, he had brought the lands of Burgundy (outside France) to the Hapsburgs. Like Julius, his priority was to stop French aggression and expansion in Italy. His Grandson is also Charles of Castile.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/14/213-background-to-war/feed/1211a The Shakespeare Controversyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/08/211a-the-shakespeare-controversy/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/08/211a-the-shakespeare-controversy/#commentsMon, 08 May 2017 19:38:45 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=6023Read More]]>Released as a bonus Shedcast a few weeks ago, here’s Eddy McLain’s take on the Shakespeare controversy.

For a number of centuries, people celebrated William Shakespeare and his works and talents. As they do now, or at least once you’ve stopped being forced to study the lad. But since 1857, and the work of someone called Delia Salter Bacon, there have been rumours and theories stubbornly circulating about it was really him doing this. Maybe it was the polymath Francis Bacon? Or various Earls…or, what about Elizabeth I? She didn’t have a lot to do of an evening.

So in this special bequest by David McLain, we can find out more – what are theories, where do they come from, and do they hold water?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/05/08/211a-the-shakespeare-controversy/feed/4212 Pleasure and Libertyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/04/30/212-pleasure-and-liberty/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/04/30/212-pleasure-and-liberty/#commentsSun, 30 Apr 2017 17:56:30 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=5579Read More]]>Henry VIII was released by this accession to the courtly, chivalric life of the hunt, and masque, and tournaments. In this he was encouraged by by Council – while his father’s ‘peace party’ got on with the business of ruling.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/04/30/212-pleasure-and-liberty/feed/7211 Heaven Smiles Earth Rejoiceshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/04/15/211-heaven-smiles-earth-rejoices/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/04/15/211-heaven-smiles-earth-rejoices/#commentsSat, 15 Apr 2017 03:35:36 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=5535Read More]]>The accession of Henry VIII was greeted with a huge sigh of relief and great enthusiasm. His court was to change immediately, and politics for ever. Although the Book of the Courtier would not appear until 1528, it could have been written for the Tudor court to explain how to win the favour of the Prince.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/04/15/211-heaven-smiles-earth-rejoices/feed/2210 Bloody Beasthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/04/02/210-bloody-beast/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/04/02/210-bloody-beast/#commentsSun, 02 Apr 2017 09:29:52 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=5219Read More]]>How Henry has been assessed by historians through the ages, and the controversies of his reign. And assessments of the man himself.

The famous Holbein mural was designed to greet courtiers at Whitehall palace, and make it quite clear that you were in the presence of power. It was destroyed by fire – all that survives from Holbein is the preparation drawing, which is in the National Portrait Gallery, and well worth a visit. But there are many copies. There he stands in all his glory; magnificently dressed in clothes that cost more than entire villages would earn in a year. A big man, Legs thrust confidently apart, small piggy eyes staring out at you balefully. The painting was made in 1537 when Henry was in his forties, and probably already getting pretty tubby and having problems with an ulcerous leg. But this is propaganda; Henry had learned well from his father, that a king must project his power and magnificence. Holbein created the picture to be seen a few inches above your head, so that the impact would be even stronger, the projection of power, confidence, authority, command. This was Henry as he wanted to be seen, and this is the picture actually that best represents how most people at the time would have seen or imagined him.

Some views of Henry VIII

by Unknown artist, oil on panel, circa 1520

Contemporaries generally regarded him with awe and adulation. Especially when he came to the throne as a young man, this comment by a foreign ambassador to his court was typical of how bowled over everyone was.

“a most invincible King, whose acquirements and qualities are so many and excellent that I consider him to excel all who ever wore a crown”

The Earl of Surrey was not so positive. Though of course since he was about to be executed he was understandably miffed.

“I saw a royal throne whereas that Justice should have sit instead of whom I saw with fierce a cruel mood where wrong was sat, that bloody beast, that drunk the guiltless blood”

Historians of the past

Sellar and Yeatman speak with the most authority in ‘1066 and All That‘:

Henry VIII was a strong king with a very strong sense of humour and VIII wives, memorable among whom were Katherine the Arrogant, Anne of Cloves, Lady Jane Austin and Anne Hathaway. His beard was, however, red.

One of the strongest things that Henry VIII did was about the monasteries. It was pointed out to him that no one in the monasteries was married, as the monks all thought it was still the Middle Ages. So Henry, who, of course, considered marrying a Good Thing, told Cromwell to pass a very strong act saying that the Middle Ages were over and the monasteries were all to be dissolved.

The whig view, whatever the view of Henry personally, was of a king who led his people out of medieval darkness towards their destiny as a leading nation of the world. For historians like SR Gardiner and J A Froude, he was a hero. They emphasised that Henry helped England escape the religious wars that tore parts of the continent apart; they claimed a deep connection between king and people, that has Henry VIII representing the public will.

The view of Henry as a man was far from universally positive though, even by those who essentially celebrated his impact. R W Dixon wrote:

a man of force without grandeur: of great ability, but not of lofty intellect: punctilious yet unscrupulous: centred in himself: greedy and profuse: cunning rather than sagacious: of fearful passion and intolerable pride, but destitute of ambition in the nobler sense of the word: a character of degraded magnificence.

At the start of the 20th century, A F Pollard was Henry’s great proponent, describing him as a man of courage whose reforms took England down a path to democracy and a greater role in the world.

G E Elton famously transformed the history of Henry’s reign in the 1950’s with his ‘Tudor Revolution in Government’, putting Henry’s ministers centre stage, especially with his thesis that it was Thomas Cromwell in particular who knowingly dragged English government from medieval to the modern times. The thesis has been a matter of fierce debate for over 50 years, though most no longer view Cromwell and quite as all seeing and knowing as Elton argued.

Since then, much of Henry’s reign, character and achievements have been transformed. The Reformation, once seen largely (though far from exclusively) as a positive part of the development of England’s national character, has become seen in an almost universally negative light. J J Scarisbrick’s Henry VIII, originally written in 1968, is often still quoted as the best biography. Scarisbrook acknowledged Henry’s confidence and talent for display; he “wore regality with a splendid conviction’ but essentially saw him as easily led, and emphasized the negative:

“rarely, if ever, has the unawareness and irresponsibility of a king proved more costly of the material benefit of his people”

John Guy concurred with that describing Henry as “a second-rate mind with what looks suspiciously like an inferiority complex”. E W Ives is similarly negative; “Henry VIII’s monumental selfishness was disguised by highly effective propaganda”. David Starkey is a bit more positive:

‘…he had many of the qualities of a born leader. He was intelligent; his memory was good and his eye for detail sharp. He was a shrewd judge of men and had a flair for self protection and propaganda. Moreover, he was both ruthless and selfish, while his staggering self-righteousness made him proof against doubts and the dark nights of the soul’

Henry VIII clearly had one indisputable talent; to fascinate and spark argument and debate across the centuries.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/04/02/210-bloody-beast/feed/4209 Explorationhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/03/26/209-exploration/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/03/26/209-exploration/#commentsSun, 26 Mar 2017 09:41:10 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=4938Read More]]>Through the 15th century, Portugal explored the African coast in search of the Indies and the fabulous wealth of the trading networks with the East – such as those of Mansa Musa from Timbuktu. Until the great expeditions of Columbus and Da Gama led to the opening of contact with the Americas and Asia.

England’s contribution was, well, relatively modest, as the Matthew set out from Bristol in 1497, and returned from Newfoundland. For a while, John Cabot was a sensation, and spent his £10 reward from Henry VII with abandon as he prepared for his second, larger expedition. Which is a good thing -since sadly he never return, and no news came back of the fate that had befallen him. Henry VIII had little time for such things, and it would be more than a generation before English efforts seriously started anew.

The maps available to the first explorers, such as the Catalan Atlas of 1375 were not well designed to be practical aids. Most pilots depended on experience in the form of their rutters to guide them, and this experience was jealously guarded.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/03/26/209-exploration/feed/2208 I Heart Henryhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/03/19/208-i-heart-henry/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/03/19/208-i-heart-henry/#commentsSun, 19 Mar 2017 07:33:28 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=4841Read More]]>What happened when Henry was gone. And the report card – was Henry an incompetent tyrant, a fun loving saviour of England’s future – or something in between? Should we listen to Francis Bacon or to Henry himself?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/03/19/208-i-heart-henry/feed/7207 The Underworldhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/03/05/207-the-underworld/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/03/05/207-the-underworld/#commentsSun, 05 Mar 2017 15:29:49 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=4546Read More]]>While the young prince Henry built a group of aristocratic companions and longed desperately for the joust, his father drove his hatchet men Dudley and Empson ever further into the dark world of extortion and oppression. But in 1509, Henry fell ill again.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/03/05/207-the-underworld/feed/3206 Descent to the Underworldhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/02/25/206-descent-to-the-underworld/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/02/25/206-descent-to-the-underworld/#respondSat, 25 Feb 2017 09:35:59 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=4296Read More]]>Henry had found two hatchet men to replace Reginald Bray – Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. They spread their tentacles and contacts through London and England, and used the Council Learned to drive their master’s policy to extort every possible fee ‘to the king’s advantage’. And did pretty well for themselves too.

Edmund de la Pole, ex Earl of Suffolk, was finally delivered to Henry, and incarcerated in the Tower – along with his brother William. Edmund would not long survive Henry VIII’s accession – poor William would spend his life in the Tower, to die in 1539. Meanwhile the White Rose, Richard, Edmund’s younger brother at least had a life of some adventure before dying at the battle of Pavia in 1525.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/02/25/206-descent-to-the-underworld/feed/0205 Do Not Let Me Perishhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/02/18/205-do-not-let-me-perish/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/02/18/205-do-not-let-me-perish/#commentsSat, 18 Feb 2017 17:44:00 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=4288Read More]]>In the early 1500’s Henry VII saw many of his closest confidentes and supporters die. Catherine of Aragon was to be one of those who suffered as a result. He also built the rather magnificent palace at Sheen, renaming it Richmond; not knowing that in a few years, it would be the place of his death.

The death of Prince Arthur, April 2nd 1502

The death of Arthur, as preserved from a contemporary Herald account in the ‘Antiuquarian Repetory’ in the 18th century by Francis Grose.

“In the year of our Lord God a thousand five hundred and two, the second day of April, in the Castle of Ludlow, deceased Prince Arthur, first begotten son of our Sovraigne Lord King Henry the VII. Immediately after his death Sir Richard Pole, his Chamberlain, with other of his Council, wrote and sent letters to the King’s Council, to Greenwich, where his Grace and the Queen lay, and certified them of the Prince’s departing; which discreetly sent for the King’s goodly father, a Frere Observant, to whom they showed this most sorrowful and heavy tidings, and desired him in his best manner to show it to the King; which, in the morning the Tuesday then following, somewhat before the time accustomed, knocked at the King’s chamber door. And when the King understood it was his Confessor, commanded to let him in; which Confessor commanded all those there present to leave, and, after due salutations began to say:

“Si bona de manu dei suscipimus mala autem quare non sustineamus.”

[If we receive good things from the hand of God, shall we not also receive bad?”]

and so showed his Grace that his dearest son was departed to God. And when his Grace understood that sorrowful heavy tidings, sent for the Queen, saying that he and his Queue would take the painful sorrow together. And, after that she was come, and saw the King her Lord and husband in that natural and painful sorrow (as I heard say) with full great and constant comfortable words besought his Grace that he would, first after God, remember the welfare of his own noble person, the comfort of his realm, and of her; and how that my Lady his mother never had no more children but him only; and that God by his Grace had ever preserved him, and brought him where that he was; and that how God had left them yet a fair goodly Prince; two faire Princesses; and even that God is where he was, and we both young enough; and that the prudence and wisdom of his Grace sprung over all Christendom, so that it should please him to take this according thereunto.

Than the King thanked her of her good comfort ; and after that, she was departed, and coming into her own chamber, natural and motherly remembrance of that great loss smote her so sorrowful to the heart that those that were about her were fain to send for the King to comfort her; and then his Grace of true gentle and faithful love, in good hast came and relieved her, and showed her how wise council she had given him before, and he, for his part, would thank God of his sons, and would she should do in likewise.”

Richmond Palace

Shene manor had a manor house from Henry I’s reign, but it was Edward III who had first turned it into the royal Shene Palace in 1377. It was a great favourite of Anne of Bohemia, the wife of Richard II; but when she died, Richard was so upset he actually had the palace destroyed, which seems a little over the top. The place was completely razed,and its stone and resources used around the country.

Henry V, though, wanted a palace in the area, and so ordered it rebuilt. He planned for a large stone building, but the wars with France took precedence, and so the work was not completed, the palace was neglected, and the palace was left mostly made from wood. Then in 1445 when the palace was hurriedly repaired for Henry VI’s wife Margaret of Anjou. After this very little work was done – only general repairs and maintaining the palace.

Five years after his ascension to the throne Edward IV gifted the palace to his wife, Queen Elizabeth Woodville, as her residence for life; but in 1487, Henry VII took it back, and he invested heavily in the place. Shene was to be his example of a royal palace to rival any in Europe. So it was unfortunate that while work was still going on in 1497, a fire started in the Private chambers, got out of hand, and the place was massively damaged. Henry was there for Christmas, and presumably everyone had to scuttle out

Henry, started again, with plans more magnificent than before. Around four years later, in 1501, the palace was finally completed and considered upon a true renaissance palace in England. Henry renamed it as the palace of Richmond, after his family title of Earl of Richmond. Soon after the whole area would be known as Richmond. Though the work clearly wasn’t perfect; in 1507, the galleries suddenly collapsed. As it happens Prince Henry had just walked through – he could so easily have been killed, and then where would the Tudor Dynasty have been? Henry VII was livid, and had the builders imprisoned and the whole palace renovated.

Maybe his lucky escape was why Henry didn’t really like the place. He kept passing it off – to Wolsey; then Catherine of Aragon and Mary, and later Anne of Cleves. Henry’s daughters Mary and Elizabeth, though, both came to love Richmond Palace. Mary took her honeymoon there. In the reign of Elizabeth I, it reached its zenith; she spent a lot of time there, hunting red deer in the park, ordering plays performed in its halls; and she died there. But after that, it fell out of favour; James I much preferred the palace at Westminster.

The end of the palace

The Commonwealth of course recognised Richmond as nothing but a symbol of royal power, stripped the palace of everything of worth and destroyed it. It was never rebuilt, and eventually the crown eventually started letting out the grounds.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/02/18/205-do-not-let-me-perish/feed/8204 Governing the Early Tudor Statehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/02/05/204-governing-the-early-tudor-state/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/02/05/204-governing-the-early-tudor-state/#commentsSun, 05 Feb 2017 14:19:19 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=4042Read More]]>Henry made changes to the English court, administration and legal system. But many of his actions would be seen as setting a path to tyranny and avarice later in the reign

Royal Finances

When he came to the throne, royal finances were something of a mess. Income from royal lands in the very early years may have amounted to little more than £3,000, and total royal revenue to £50,000, of which £33,000 came from customs dues.

By the later part if his reign, Henry was saving money each year, ordinary revenue of £40,000, £40,000 from customs, and the French Pension. By the time of his death, Henry left stable finances, and a war chest invested in jewels and plate of probably £300,000.

The Council Learned in Law

The Council Learned was an equity court, or a prerogative court. This meant that it followed the precepts of Roman law rather than Common law. In particular, this meant it was charged with doing right, not with following law; and it made no use of juries. Just like the Court of Star Chamber, it was not a court sitting in a defined place with a defined terms of reference – it was just a group of the king’s councillors exercising the king’s authority. The title of the Court of Star Chamber acquired its name because Morton chose for it to sit in a particular room, and it had a star device on the ceiling.

The Council Learned was set up because the Exchequer was not successful at collecting the king’s debts, and nor was the Chamber. It was established in 1495 by Reginald Bray, but would become very closely associated with two particular names later in the reign – Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. Siunce it was initially set up to deal with the Duchy of Lancaster, before extending it scompetence to all crown lands, its President was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster – first Reginald Bray, and then Richard Empson in 1504. Both were charged by Henry to increase royal revenue and bring

“Many persons in danger at his pleasure…bound to his grace for great sums of money”

The Council Learned was a tool to achieve that. Unlike the other courts of equity (chancery Courts, Exchequer, Star Chamber, Court of Requests), the bulk of cases heard by the council Learned were initiated by the Government. As a prerogative court, it did not use normal writs; defendants received a letter telling them when to attend; but not where. It did not tell them the nature of the charge – just that they were to attend to answer questions. When they arrived, defendants had to search for the location of the sitting on that day; for many, it would have been a terrifying experience.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/02/05/204-governing-the-early-tudor-state/feed/5203 The Spanish Princesshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/01/22/203-the-spanish-princess/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/01/22/203-the-spanish-princess/#commentsSun, 22 Jan 2017 13:54:03 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=3627Read More]]>After negotiations that would win prizes, it was finally time for Henry VII and Queen Elizabeth’s pride and joy Prince Arthur to marry the Spanish Princess, Catherine of Aragon.

Catherine of Aragon

Catherine was the daughter of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon, and came from a large family. She seems to have been something of a favourite with her parents; Ferdinand declared he loved her entirely and forever because

‘she hath loved me better than any of my other children’

Letters from Isabella to Henry, and between Elizabeth of York and Isabella often have pleas for Henry and Elizabeth to love their daughter and treat her well, even if that meant spending less time on preparing a magnificent wedding.

Her education reflected to a degree her mother’s character; Isabella was fiercely pious, and became more and more so in later life. Isabella was influenced by the New Learning that had spread from Italy; but although Catherine had a good classical education, learning Latin and Greek, the emphasis of the authors she read was more on the morally safe and less risqué. A lot of emphasis was placed on the learning of the church fathers. None the less, she was very well educated; the famous exponent of the New Learning, Erasmus, was to be delighted with her saying

She loves good learning, which she has studied with success since childhood

Catherine was taught to dance and to sing, but there were odd gaps in her educations; as David Starkey notes, she appears to have been steered away from anything to do with the more risqué subject of Courtly Love – the courtly arts of music, poetry and the game of love. Physically, she appears to have been short of a length, fair with Auburn hair and blue eyes. About 9 years later she was described by her confessor thus:

Her highness is very healthy and the most beautiful creature in the world, with the greatest gaiety and contentment that ever was.’

The magnificence of her dress and attendants struck everyone as she arrived in England; and indeed the group of African attendants, including a black musician, John Blanke caused quite a stir, being something of a rarity in England.

Whether Perkin was an imposter and pretender as Henry VII claimed and to which Perkin apparently confessed, is probably unknowable, at least definitively; and not being a lover of conspiracy theories I am sorry to say that I have followed the party line. But of course for honesty’s sake, I should at least note that no one appears to be able to find any record of Perkin before the age of nine; and we have only the Tudor line to rely on.

The story of his marriage to Lady Catherine Gordon is rather remarkable, or at least I would be very interested to get inside their heads to find out how they viewed the marriage. Did Perkin’s conscience continually prick him at the deceit, if indeed he was an imposter? Did Catherine believe Perkin, or was she forced into a marriage for political reasons? We’ll never know – but there’s a brief article I’ve written here:

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2017/01/08/202-scotland-cornwall-and-warbeck/feed/2201 Poyning’s Lawhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/12/25/201-poynings-law/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/12/25/201-poynings-law/#respondSun, 25 Dec 2016 09:38:04 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=2921Read More]]>Ireland in 1495 was almost 3 societies living side by side. We take a trip to Ireland, hear about the Great Earl, and the law that became known as Poyning’s law. Plus, Perkin arrives – will Ireland welcome him as it did Lambert?

Maps

Below are two maps. Both rather wonderful aren’t they – the Origenes one is amazing. Bit difficult to see the towns though – hence the second one

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/12/25/201-poynings-law/feed/0200 Printin and Perkinhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/12/11/200-printin-and-perkin/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/12/11/200-printin-and-perkin/#commentsSun, 11 Dec 2016 13:02:50 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=2535Read More]]>The appearance of a new pretender – Perkin Warbeck in Ireland was to distort Henry VII’s domestic and foreign policy for the rest of the 1490’s.

Some Dramatis Personae

Charles VIII of France

Charles was born in 1470 and died at the tender age of 28, reigning for 15 years between 1483 and 1498. Under Charles, the integration of France came closer, as he centralised bureaucracy, brought Brittany into the French crown, and ended the ‘Mad War’ of 1483-1488 defeating the regional aspirations of the Dukes.

Unlike Louis the Spider, he thirsted for foreign glory, and directed every policy towards the end of bringing the Kingdom of Naples under French control – and realise the ancient claims of the Counts of Anjou to the kingdom. His invasion of 1494 was a tour de force – and unstoppable steam roller of 25,000 men that rolled over northern Italy. It was also utterly futile – within a few years, Charles had been thrown out, and in 1498 was dead after banging his head playing Real Tennis. But he started 50 years of conflict in Italy, after the relative peace of the Treaty of Lodi in 1454.

Emperor Maximilian, 1459-1519

Maximilian played a central role in European politics both as King of the Romans and as Emperor; in fact, his father Frederick was completely unlike his son, a very cautious man and derided by his wait and see approach.

Which was something frankly Maximilian could have down with more of. He was a wildly volatile man, given to chasing mad schemes and then just as quickly dropping them and charging off somewhere else. Initially, he strove to protect the patrimony of Burgundy for the Hapsburgs – only partially successfully, wince the French king retained the French lands, while the Netherlands stayed with the Hapsburgs. Later in his life he and his son Philip Duke of Burgundy sought to build Hapsburg power with the Spanish inheritance; and although Philip died before his father, Charles V would indeed be Emperor of both Spain and the Hapsburg patrimonies

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/12/11/200-printin-and-perkin/feed/6199 The New Menhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/11/27/199-the-new-men/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/11/27/199-the-new-men/#commentsSun, 27 Nov 2016 10:43:42 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=1963Read More]]>Henry VII’s ambitions were to rule in the French style – to better control and increase his income. He gathered around him bureaucrats – new men he could trust and who depended on him rather than the nobility of the court. We also start the story of printing.

Henry VII’s inner Council

The King’s Council could be an unwieldy affair; from 1485 to 1509 there were a total of 227 royal councillors; at any one time there were no more than 150 and only some of these attended a meeting of the Royal Council. But there would normally be 40 members. So the King had an inner circle of less than a dozen with whom he worked in his private chambers in Whitehall palace protected by his new Yeomen of the Guards. These men were given remits to represent the king in his sub committees like the Council Learned or Star Chamber; or trusted with the most challenging and sensitive administrative, military or diplomatic assignments. Until later in the reign, the vast majority of these men had one thing in common – they had either been with Henry in exile, or there was some other reason why they had Henry’s trust. There were nobility among them; Jasper Tudor; John de Vere; Thomas Stanley. But many were from much more humble origins. These men did well from their service; but their relationship with Henry was rarely easy, and the king’s suspicions could turn at any time. For example, although Giles Daubeney was in high favour with Henry VII, he received a very harsh fine of £2000 and was forced to give up his French pension; apparently for claiming excessive payments for the Calais garrison. Reginald Bray similarly was forced to give a benevolence of £600.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/11/27/199-the-new-men/feed/6198 Mothers and Wiveshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/11/16/198-mothers-and-wives/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/11/16/198-mothers-and-wives/#commentsWed, 16 Nov 2016 08:09:20 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=1675Read More]]>In 1485 and 1486 Henry established the foundations of his reign through parliament, and established his household. The relationship between his wife and his mother would always be a matter of some debate.

The Parliament of 1485

Henry established his right to rule – on his lineage and verum dei judicium – right by God’s judgment; there is no mention of Elizabeth of York

Henry laid out his position on Livery and Maintenance – it was banned except for household men and councillors; and all were compelled to take an oath to that effect

The date of his reign starts on 21st August – the day before Bosworth. This means all at Bosworth can be attainted

The act of Attainder is duly passed

Henry is told to resume all royal lands given away since the time of Henry VI in 1455

Parliament asks Henry to marry Elizabeth of York

Parliament grants tunnage and poundage (customs revenue) to Henry for life

Elizabeth Woodville

In 1487, Elizabeth finally left the political stage – banished to Bermondsey Abbey, with just 400 marks a year to live on. She was with her daughter Elizabeth of York at some key events, such as her confinements; and it is possible that she was not entirely unhappy with the move – though without doubt Margaret Beaufort and Henry would have been glad to see her go.

Elizabeth of York and her Mother in Law

It is difficult to know exactly what the relationship was between the Queen Elizabeth of York, her Husband Henry and her Mother in Law Margaret Beaufort.

Traditionally the image has been of a placid Elizabeth happy to take the background and let her mother in law rule the roost. But there are plenty of indications that Henry and his mother pushed Elizabeth into a situation she found deeply uncomfortable.

The Spanish visitor and diplomat Pedro de Ayala noted it when he wrote home after visiting court:

“He [Henry] is much influenced by his mother and his followers in affairs of personal interest and in others. The queen, as is generally the case, does not like it.”

“The Queen is a very noble woman and much beloved. She is kept in subjection by the mother of the king.”

Elizabeth was the recipient of a stream of presents from her husband; but the estate he gave her at £1,900 a year, was simply inadequate for the expenses of a queen, and Elizabeth was always short – and therefore dependent on these handouts. Although Elizabeth and Henry are more often together than was probably normal for kings and queens – the king’s mother was in constant attendance.

We will never know for sure; but it seems likely Elizabeth of York was forced into a secondary position and constantly subject to the rule of Margaret Beaufort.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/11/16/198-mothers-and-wives/feed/3197 The Story of Henry VIIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/10/31/197-the-story-of-henry-vii-2/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/10/31/197-the-story-of-henry-vii-2/#respondMon, 31 Oct 2016 07:39:15 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=1579Read More]]>When he won the throne of England, Henry had spent most of his life under guard, and was an adventurer. His efforts were therefore bent towards establishing the legitimacy of his reign – and his dynasty. Enter the ‘Tudor Myth’.

Then we look at how historians have treated the lad. By and large, there was a reasonably homogenous picture for many centuries – with eh odd twiddle here and there; but recently, his reputation has been challenged.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/10/31/197-the-story-of-henry-vii-2/feed/0196 England at the Dawn of the Tudor Agehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/10/24/196-england-at-the-dawn-of-the-tudor-age/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/10/24/196-england-at-the-dawn-of-the-tudor-age/#respondMon, 24 Oct 2016 06:06:07 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=1313Read More]]>England in 1485 was at once a deeply traditional medieval society – and yet poised at the edge of change – economic, social, religious and political

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/10/24/196-england-at-the-dawn-of-the-tudor-age/feed/0195 The History of Europe Part VIIIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/10/23/195-the-history-of-europe-part-viii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/10/23/195-the-history-of-europe-part-viii/#commentsSun, 23 Oct 2016 19:54:32 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=1032Read More]]>15th Century European kingdoms were wracked by internal division as well as international war. By the end of the century, many nations had achieved unity and some degree of internal peace. Spain, France, the Empire, England would seek to build more effective, centralised states capable of competing – with each other.

A movable feast it has to be said…by the end Spain was united, Novgorod part of Moscow’s new Russia of Ivan III, Bosnia and Albania submitted to the Turks; and of course the French had stolen England’s rightful inheritance of northern and South Western France.

Some Personalities

Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain were given the title of Catholic Monarchs, and through their Grandson, Charles V, would unite Spain – and create the enormous (and unmanagable) Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire

When to declare the Wars of the Roses all finished and done? There are as many choices as there are for start dates.

1485 and the Battle of Bosworth has been a favourite. After all, with hindsight the dynasty will no longer change.

1541 is another option, seemingly very late, with the execution of Margaret de la Pole, and the shedding of the last credible Yorkist blood.

In this episode, I plump for 1487. For this was the last battle fought by a Yorkist claimant on English soil.

But it’s worth noting that nobody at the time knew if this was the end or not – and with Perkin Warbeck, and Edmund and Richard de la Pole still to come, the fear of a Yorkist revival and the strife of the Wars of the Roses would last to the death of Henry VIII at the very least.

We then spend some time thinking about the causes and impacts of the Wars. The recognition that the medieval system utterly depended on an effective monarch; the rise of populism and slightly surprising appeal of the magnates to the people; the impact on the prestige of the royal house and consequences for Henry VII.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/10/17/194-the-wars-of-the-roses/feed/0193 The Blood of Innocentshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/09/04/the-blood-of-innocents-vote-and-draw/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/09/04/the-blood-of-innocents-vote-and-draw/#commentsSun, 04 Sep 2016 13:24:25 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/09/04/the-blood-of-innocents-vote-and-draw/Read More]]>
In 1483, the gates of the Tower of London closed on two innocent and defenceless boys; one, Edward, 12, captured and the other Richard, 10, given up by his mother. As far as we know, neither of were seen outside the walls again. The London Chronicles accused Richard III of shedding ‘Blood of Innocents’.

This week’s episode talks about what we do know and what we don’t, and presents the pros and cons of 4 possible answers. And then, see the results below of the debate and poll we had on who was responsible!

The Poll Result

There were four options, as below…and sadly it appears that although the History of England Podcast listeners are firm friends of Richard, we also think he had the boys killed. And it wasn’t terribly close either, as you can see from the chart. Much regret was expressed by many for choosing option A. Interesting debate though all round – especially if it was really so unbelievable that both could have died from natural causes. Maybe they did. And also maybe it was Livia…which made me laugh. It was fun – thanks to everyone who took part.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/09/04/the-blood-of-innocents-vote-and-draw/feed/17192 Bosworthhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/28/192-bosworth/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/28/192-bosworth/#respondSun, 28 Aug 2016 12:17:42 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/28/192-bosworth/Read More]]>At last in 1485 Richard got to meet his challenger in person at the Battle of Bosworth – a meeting he needed every bit as much as Henry Tudor.

The lead up to Bosworth

Richard was very aware throughout 1484 and 1485 of the potential challenge from the only remaining source – Henry Tudor. Through his reign he pursued diplomatic methods to nullify the threat. The political situation initially helped him.

In France, the death of king Louis left a minority government run by Anne Beaujeu, Charles VIII’s sister. Arrayed against them were the Orleanists, in the so called ‘Mad War’, so sought to bring Brittany to their side; this gave Richard the chance to offer military support to Brittany to help their long fight for independence, in return for the delivery by Duke Francis of Brittany of Henry Tudor to England. This came very close to success in 1484. Only a last minute flight from to France by Jasper and Henry Tudor saved them from capture.

Once in France, the political situation there played against Richard and for Tudor. For a short window, there was a real incentive for Anne and CVharles VIII to support an invasion by Henry against England, to de-stabilise possible support for the Orleanists.

During later 1484 and 1485 therefore, Henry Tudor prepared – gaining military support and a loan for his pending invasion. Henry Tudor wrote to leading magnates – very probably gaining secret support from the Stanleys and of course his mother Margaret Beaufort; and possibly corresponding with potential supporters such as Rhys ap Thomas in Wales and Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland.

Meanwhile Richard did everything possible to prepare against invasion, equipping ships to patrol the channel, an d working with his magnates – Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland; Lord Thomas Stanley and Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk. The scene was set.

The Bosworth Campaign

Henry Tudor, with his captains Jasper Tudor and John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, landed in Milford Haven on 7th August, landing in Wales to draw on the he Tudors’ traditional support in Wales. They moved north along the Welsh coast, then struck through to the English Midlands arriving near Bosworth by 21st August. They probably numbered around 5,000.

Richard meanwhile learned of the landing by 11th August. Orders went out to his magnates to gather their forces, and Norfolk and Northumberland met him with their forces at Leicester, numbering between 7,000 and 10,000. But the Stanleys, though they gathered substantial armies, of maybe 6,000 men, refused to join Richard; and equally refused to meet Henry Tudor, and shadowed both forces.

Bosworth field

The battle of Bosworth is covered in many places – you can do worse than go to the Wikipedia site, from where these maps are taken. On the morning of 22nd August, Richard took up positions on the edge of a rise, and the Tudors, led by Oxford march to the foot of the hill, and an exchange of artillery took place until Norfolk in Richard’s vanguard charged down the hill to attack. During the fierce fighting, Norfolk was killed – when Richard spotted Henry Tudor and his bodyguard on horseback galloping towards the Stanley’s position. In a reckless do or die charge, Richard swept down in a cavalry charge and came close to overwhelming Henry.

At this point the Stanley’s finally chose their sides, and attacked the isolated King. Richard refused to flee; “I will die a king or win” he had declared. Stanley’s men hit before he could break through, and now the tables were turned. Richard’s horse was killed from under him. At some point he must have lost his helmet, and he was hit by several glancing blows that cut his scalp and took chips of bone off his skull. In agony he fought on, but a mounted man struck down with a dagger and pierced his skull. And then came a mighty blow from a heavy bladed weapon which opened his skull at the base of his head, and the last Plantagent king went to meet his maker. He died, wrote Polydore Vergil, 'fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies.' One of the Stanleys recovered Richard gold circlet from a thorn bush, and crowned Henry Tudor on the field of battle.

Richard's burial

Richard's body was slung naked over a horse, his long hair tied under his chin, and taken to Leicester. There he was buried in Greyfriars Abbey in the chancel. The tomb bore the inscription:

I, here, whom the earth encloses under various coloured marbleWas justly called Richard the Third.I was Protector of my country, an uncle ruling on behalf of his nephewI held the British kingdoms by broken faith. Then for just sixty days less two, And two summers, I held my sceptres.Fighting bravely in war, deserted by the English,I succumbed to you, King Henry VII. But you yourself, piously, at your expense, thus honour my bones And you cause a former king to be revered with the honour of a kingWhen [in] twice five years less fourThree hundred five-year periods of our salvation have passed.And eleven days before the Kalends of SeptemberI surrendered to the red rose the power it desired.Whoever you are, pray for my offences, That my punishment may be lessened by your prayers

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/28/192-bosworth/feed/0191 The Reign of Richard IIIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/21/191-the-reign-of-richard-iii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/21/191-the-reign-of-richard-iii/#commentsSun, 21 Aug 2016 20:55:05 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/21/191-the-reign-of-richard-iii/Read More]]>Unfortunately for Richard he was never able to simply concentrate of governing the realm; the hangover of his accession, the presence of Henry Tudor abroad – these things constantly took his attention away.

Richard was plagued by bad luck. In April 1484, Anne and Richard's only son, Edward of Middleham, died. His tomb is at Sheriff Hutton, in the heartland of Neville country.

‘You might have seen the father and mother…almost out of their minds for a long time when faced with such sudden grief’

Anne clearly was not going to have another child. Richard had two bastards for sure, John and Katharine, but there was no talk of any attempt to legitimise them. Nope, the whispering was instead about the inconvenience of Anne's existence. But in fact Anne was ill; although she did her best to play her part at the Epiphany celebrations of 1484, on March 16th she was dead.

And then the tongues really began to wag. Had she been poisoned by Richard? The Tudor historians would have us believe he had; but even the Crowland Chronicle seemed to suggest such a thing:

"In the course of a few days after this, the Queen fell extremely sick, and her illness was supposed to have increased still more and more, because the king entirely shunned her bed, declaring that it was by the advice of his physicians that he did so. Why enlarge?"

And the tongues continued to wag – that Richard would marry his niece, Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV and Queen Elizabeth. After all, it would unite the Yorkist lines, bolster Richard's legitimacy, give the Henry Tudor promise top marry her a real kick. But it's difficult to believe Richard ever genuinely contemplated such a thing – marrying his niece would surely have removed any remaining shred of credibility. But incredibly, the rumors were so strong, Richard was forced to publically deny it:

"In the presence of many of his lords and much other people showed his grief and displeasure and said it never came in his thought or mind to marry in such a manner wise."

Really, it seemed the only thing that could wipe the account clean would be to meet and defeat his rival Henry Tudor in battle.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/21/191-the-reign-of-richard-iii/feed/1190 Good King Richard?https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/14/190-good-king-richard/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/14/190-good-king-richard/#commentsSun, 14 Aug 2016 16:16:44 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/14/190-good-king-richard/Read More]]>Part of the story to counter the propaganda of the Tudors is the view that Richard promised to be an exceptionally good ruler. The brevity of Richard's reign make an assessment difficult – and yet despite this it is possible to point to real innovation and achievement in law and justice, and to substantiate Richard's desire to protect the more powerless in his kingdom.

There was little radical about Richard III, who saw his responsibilities very much in the time honoured tradition, and had not changed significantly since the time of King Edgar and Dunstan:

First, that the church of God and the whole Christian people shall have true peace at all time by our judgment; Second, that I will forbid extortion and all kinds of wrong-doing to all orders of men; Third, that I will enjoin equity and mercy in all judgments

Defender of the Church and Religion

Richard appears to have been traditionally pious – or somewhat more than was traditional. Certainly his behaviour as Duke of Gloucester and as king demonstrated his commitment. He was keen to impress on the clergy their responsibilities. In 1484 he published an open letter to his bishops:

"…amongst other our secular businesses and cures, our principal intent and fervent desire is to see virtue and cleanness of living to be advanced, increased and multiplied, and all other things repugnant to virtue, provoking the high indignation and fearful displeasure of God, to be repressed and annulled."

Richard made the traditional donations and grants to religious institutions, and of education – particularly Queen's college Cambridge.

Lover of Justice – the parliament of 1484

Richard brought with him the reputation of good governance from the north, and indeed claimed the throne by sitting on the king's throne in Westminster hall and delivering a lecture to the king's justices. After Buckingham's rebellion, Richard issued a proclamation:

"the king's highness is fully determined to see due administration of justice throughout this his realm to be had and reform, punish and subdue all extortions and oppressions in the same. "

This interest continued through his reign, and forms the most commonly referenced basis for the image of Good King Richard – particularly in his one parliament of 1484.

It is not clear which of the acts were initiated by Richard, and which from the lords and commons; but then Richard at all times had power of veto, and therefore surely claims credit anyway. There were xxx particularly relevant acts from the 16 enacted at the parliament.

Fairness in land purchase: buying land in days medieval was complicated by the principal that the King was in theory the only landowner in his kingdom. Despite a well established market for buying and selling land, law was therefore complex and open to abuse; in particular feudal fines and dues were often hidden from the buyer – which could even include the land being entailed away. Richard's parliament sought to ensure that buyers of property had effective title to land they bought, and that all fines and dues had to be made fully public.

Protection from extortion: Medieval justice was appallingly open to abuse by the rich and powerful. Lords and magnates might pay an 'approver' to bring an accusation; the defendant could be imprisoned immediately, and his goods seized and sold. The act allowed bail to anyone accused of felony, protecting them from imprisonment and having their good seized before conviction.

Reducing corruption: rules introduced and strengthened governing the behaviour of officials in court cases; property qualifications were introduced for jurors, so they could resist undue influence.

Outlawing forced taxation: It had been long common for kings to force their richest subjects to loan them money; Edward IV had taken the practice of forced loans to the limit, by simply forcing these men to give him money with no promise of returning the money. These were called 'benevolences'. Effectively this is taxation without representation in parliament. Richard outlawed the practice.

Helping printing thrive: the parliament passed a number of protectionist acts; but Richard specifically excluded printing, helping printing survive and thrive rather than suffer unduly high prices from lack of competition and imports.

Lover of Justice – access to justice for the poor

"Every person…that find himself grieved, oppressed or unlawfully wronged do make a bill of complaint, and put it to his highness and he shall be heard, and without delay have such convenient remedy as shall accord with his laws. For his grace is utterly determined his true subjects shall live in rest and quiet and peaceably enjoy their lands, livelihoods and good, according to the laws of his land, which they be naturally born to inherit."

In this communication to the City of York, Richard signaled that the poor who could not afford justice must be given free access. These were not just words; he established one John Harrington in a court in the White Chamber of Westminster palace to run the court 'in the custody, registration and expedition of bills requests, and supplications of poor persons', which would later in Tudor times become known as the Court of Requests.

Good King Richard?

Polydore Vergil, was a Tudor historian extremely hostile to Richard. When he wrote:

"he [Richard] began to give the show and countenance of a good man, whereby he might be accounted more righteous, more mild, more better affected to the commonalty"

He implicitly recognises that Richard achieved much in his short reign – while seeking to question Richard's motives. There can be no doubt that Richard was desperate to seek support. But many of Richard's acts as king – in justice, religion and concern for the poor and powerless – have evidence from his earlier life too. Some, such as the 1484 parliaments attempt to reduce corruption in the law, was specifically aimed at the very lords he sought to win over – surely an example of doing the right thing rather than following pure expediency.

It seems more than likely that Richard was ruthless in his ambition – in his ambition to be king no matter what, but also ambitious to be a good and worthy king who lived up to the oath he made before God at his coronation.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/14/190-good-king-richard/feed/7The Great Richard III Debate and Competitionhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/04/the-great-richard-iii-debate-and-competition/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/04/the-great-richard-iii-debate-and-competition/#respondThu, 04 Aug 2016 06:26:42 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=1340Read More]]>The Result is in – the History of England listeners have spoken!

And if you care to listen – here's both the result read by the History of England's chief returning officer, and the prize draw and winners!

Something of a surprise if I say so myself, but congratulations to Richard…

The Prize draw

Remember that everyone who 'liked' the History of England page and voted can win an original Edward IV Halfpenny and a replica Richard III gold Angel; plus 2 consolation prizes for losers – some original medieval cut coins.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/08/04/the-great-richard-iii-debate-and-competition/feed/0189 The Most Untrue Creaturehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/31/189-the-most-untrue-creature/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/31/189-the-most-untrue-creature/#respondSun, 31 Jul 2016 14:52:41 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/31/189-the-most-untrue-creature/Read More]]>Richard sought to start the reconciliation of the factions in the realm. But despite his triumphant progress through the Kingdom to York, trouble was brewing – including from the most unlikely quarter

You can see this article below and short descriptions of other major players on a page on this website – just visit 'Major Players in 1483'.

Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham

Henry Stafford (1455-1483) was the senior Stafford line. In 1458 his father died, and then his grandfather, great pillar of the Lancastrians, was killed at the hands of the Yorkists in 1460. Buckingham made his peace with the Yorkist regime, marrying Catherine Woodville, sister of the Queen. With income of £3,000 a year, Buckingham was as rich as any other magnate, and after the Readeption was for a while a close member of Edward's household.

Buckingham had a particularly fine heritage. He was descended from both John of Gaunt, and Thomas of Woodstock, the latter being the fifth son of Edward III. So he had royal blood, a claim to the throne if a suitable number of people popped their clogs. There’s a rather famous point in 1483 where Buckingham reportedly says that he’d forgotten his royal lineage until John Morton reminds him. Unlikely.

In 1483, Buckingham had some gripes. One was his claim on the Bohun inheritance. There had been two famous heiresses Mary and Eleanor. Mary Married Henry IV, and sister Eleanor had married Thomas of Woodstock, and her half of the lands had come down to Buckingham. So, when the Lancastrian line came to an end at Tewkesbury, Buckingham claimed the balance. This was a dispute never resolved -as far as edward was concerned, the land was irretrievably part of the royal lands. But the main problem was his distance from the power and influence that as a royal duke he would have expected. But in 1475 he appeared to fall out of favour with Edward IV, sent home early from France, and from then was excluded from real political power under Edward, despite a brief re-appearance as High Steward to oversee

Although Buckingham was married to a sister of queen Elizabeth, he had been married when he was but 10 years old, and when Catherine was 14; from there he'd spent his wardship in Elizabeth Woodville’s household. For some reason, Dominic Mancini reports that Buckingham was livid at having been made to marry a Woodville, such an appallingly lowborn person; so low born she’d not bought a dowry with her. This assertion is rather difficult to deal with; we have absolutely no other evidence to support the claim; he and Katherine have plenty of off spring, there’s no obvious sign of estrangement. There’s a titchy bit of support for the statement in the fact that Katherine wasn’t at the coronation of Richard in which Buckingham played such a leading role.

Nonetheless, Buckingham appears to have seen Gloucester as the main route back to the limelight in 1483, and to have been keen to see the Woodvilles unseated from power and influence.

In terms of his personal characteristics, it is of course hard to judge. But volatile might be one; the suspicion he flared up and stormed off in France and wasn’t forgiven. He appeared to find it difficult to hold on to loyalties and inspire confidence, but none the less appears to be a good and persuasive speaker. But these are just stabs in the dark – we can’t be sure.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/31/189-the-most-untrue-creature/feed/0188 Richard III – Knave, Fool or Saviour?https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/24/richard-iii-knave-fool-or-saviour/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/24/richard-iii-knave-fool-or-saviour/#commentsSun, 24 Jul 2016 12:18:17 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/24/richard-iii-knave-fool-or-saviour/Read More]]>The time has for the Richard III podcast episode and vote. 3 of the no doubt many possible interpretations of the events of 1483 - did Richard plan to usurp the throne; was he driven to it by fear and events and the situation; or did he step into a breach to save a kingdom?

Where and when to Vote

You vote on the FaceBook Page, which looks like this – click on the pic to link to it. Voting ends on 29th July, and hopefully I'll be able to tot them up on holiday and let you know the results. Exciting!

The Voting instructions

Vote on the Facebook page Closing date is 29th July. You can just put Knave, Fool or Saviour; or you can add your every thought. Whatever feels good. And to help, below and a few thoughts about what each means.

The prizes!

Everyone who votes AND likes the page will go into the prize draw, with 3 fab prizes to be won…

First prize is an original Edward IV halfpenny and a replica Richard III gold Angel.

2 x second prizes – original medieval cut coins

It's a prize draw – everyone who likes and votes get's entered into the hat!

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/24/richard-iii-knave-fool-or-saviour/feed/11187a Jane Shore by James Boultonhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/17/187a-jane-shore-by-james-boulton/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/17/187a-jane-shore-by-james-boulton/#respondSun, 17 Jul 2016 13:45:16 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/17/187a-jane-shore-by-james-boulton/Read More]]>Jane Shore lives among the list of the most famous mistresses – along with the likes of Roseamund Clifford, Alice Perrers. Like Alice, Jane lives and loved at the very centre of political power for a while – but unlike Alice, left an attractive reputation.

'For many he had, but her he loved, whose favour to say truly … she never abused to any man's hurt, but to many a man's comfort. … And finally in many weighty events, she stood many men in great stead, either for none, or very small rewards, & those rather gay then rich: either for that she was content with the deed itself well done, or for that she delighted to be asked to help, & to show what she was able to do with the king'

Edward's death on 9 April 1483 left her in need of a new protector; and different chronicles link her with two great rivals – the Woodville, Thomas Grey, marquess of Dorset; and Edward's closest friend, and chamberlain William, Lord Hastings.

However, she fell foul of the pious Richard III and was forced through the streets of London to do penance:

'In which she went in countenance & pace demure so womanly, & albeit she were out of al array save her kyrtle only: yet went she so fair & lovely … that her great shame wan her much praise’

Jane found her protector in the king's solicitor, Thomas Lynom who married her. Lynom was dead by 29 July 1518; and Thomas More paints a picture of her penury; but if the Thomas Lynom who was active in Wales after 1518 was her son, it could well be poetic licence – something with which More was well acquainted. It's not sure when Jane died – but her memory is still alive and kicking in various historical novels!

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/17/187a-jane-shore-by-james-boulton/feed/0187 Edward Vhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/10/187-edward-v/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/10/187-edward-v/#commentsSun, 10 Jul 2016 08:19:12 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/10/187-edward-v/Read More]]>The reign of Edward V is one of the great controversies of English history. This episode is as uncontroversial – just what happened. Then in 2 weeks time – we have the big debate and prizes, at THoE Facebook Page. It all starts with the death of Edward IV on 9th April 1483.

The events of 1483, April to June

Richard III is one of English History's great controversies. Despite his image as the king's right hand man, a fine upstanding example of loyalty and competence – was he really an ambitious schemer who saw a chance to be king? Or was he a man driven by fear and events? Or yet, was he a man who, faced with a disastrous revelation about the heir to the throne, stepped forward to take up the burden himself?

The picture on the left is of St Paul's Cross. This was a place by the old St Paul's cathedral where speakers and preachers were often heard. It's hear, on 22nd June 1483 that a man called Ralph Shaw preached on the text of 'The bastard slips shall not take root' – and revealed to Londoners that Richard was the real heir, and should take the throne instead of his 12 year old nephew, Edward V.

Timeline

Hopefully this timeline below will help you follow events through and get them all in order; and form your own view! You can also see the Timeline in the 1483 Timeline page in the Richard III section.

Timeline of Events: April to July 1483

APRIL

6th

False reports of Edward IV's death reach York

7th

Edward gathers the Queen and Royal Councillors at his death bed, urges Hastings and Dorset to make peace which they do.

9th

Edward IV dies

11th

Royal Council meet in London. Woodvilles win the argument to crown Edward immediately on 4th May, with Gloucester as merely leader of the council not Protector. Agree to limit the size of Edward V's retinue to 2,000

14th

News of Edward's death reaches Rivers and Edward V in Ludlow

?15th

Confirmation of news of Edward's death reaches Gloucester at Middleham from Hastings. Hastings urges Gloucester to take control of Edward V before he reaches London

?16th+

Gloucester writes to Rivers, suggesting they meet on the road to London

Gloucester writes to the Royal Council; pledging allegiance to Edward, consoling the Queen, but also stating his right to the Protectorship

Buckingham's letter reaches Richard, suggesting they travel together

19th

Funeral of Edward IV; buried at Windsor

21st

Gloucester carries out a funeral service at York for Edward and pledging allegiance to Edward V

Buckingham receives Gloucester's letter & replies that he will meet at Northampton

23rd

Gloucester leaves York, having heard from Rivers that they should meet at Northampton on 29th.

24th

Rivers and Edward V leave Ludlow

29th

Rivers reaches Stony Stratford; heads north to Northampton to see Gloucester, while Edward V, Grey & Vaughan stay at Stony Stratford. Buckingham arrives at Northampton in the evening, joining Gloucester and Rivers.

Edward Woodville sails with the Fleet and £10,000 of royal treasure

30th

Gloucester and Buckingham seize the King and send Rivers, Grey and Vaughan to captivity at Sheriff's Hutton. Gloucester writes a calming letter to the Royal Council

MAY

1st

Hastings assembles lords and magnates in London, reads Gloucester's letter and assures then that Rivers, Grey and Vaughan's cases would be heard by the Royal Council, and wins them to acquiescence.

The Woodvilles attempt to raise an army against Gloucester in London – but fail. The Queen flees with her family to the Sanctuary at Westminster Abbey

Chancellor and Archbishop of York panics, and takes the Great Seal to the Queen in Sanctuary.

2nd

Gloucester at Northampton. Sends Rivers to Sheriff Hutton, Grey to Middleham, Vaughan to Pontefract. All in captivity.

4th

Gloucester, Buckingham with Edward V between them enter London with 500 men. Greeted by the Mayor and Alderman and happy smiling people. Gloucester brings carts of arms which he claims to have been gathered by the Woodvilles.

Gloucester summons lords and magnates to swear loyalty to Edward V

10th

Meeting of the Royal Council. Gloucester rewards followers, calms nerve with the appointment of neutral men to key positions, turns Great Seal over to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Installed as Protector by the Royal Council. Coronation of Edward V delayed to June 24th.

However, Council refuses Gloucester's request to accused Rivers, Grey and Vaughan in treason, and criticise him not failing to treat Elizabeth with the dignity of a queen.

13th

Writs for a parliament on 25th June issued in Edward V's name.

15th

Buckingham handsomely rewarded by Gloucester, with appointments that made him the most powerful man in Wales

JUNE

5th

Anne, Duchess of Gloucester arrives in London

?8th

Phillippe de Commines claims that Robert Stillington, Bishop of Bath and Wells presented a case to Gloucester, or Gloucester's associates, about Edward IV's pre-contract to Eleanor Butler. A letter from Simon Stallworth makes mention of it in the royal council.

10th

Gloucester writes to York and asks for troops to save him from the Woodvilles' plots

13th

Hastings, Morton, Stanley seized from the royal council, and accused of treason. Hastings executed immediately without trial.

16th

Richard surrounds Westminster Abbey & sanctuary, threatens to seize Edward Vs younger brother, the Duke of York, from Elizabeth Woodville. The Queens hands over her son to Gloucester, and he is taken to the Tower

17th

Writs issued delaying Edward Vths coronation to 9th November. However, many missed their target, since the lords and commons assembled on 25th

22nd

Ralph Shaw, Canon of St Pauls, preaches a sermon advancing Richard's claim as the only legitimate heir of York, based on the old story of Edward IV's bastardy, and a new claim that Edward's sons were bastards due to a prior marriage

24th

Buckingham advances the same claims to the Mayor & Aldermen of London at the Guildhall

25th

Lords & Commons called to 'Parliament' assemble – though legal status as a parliament not clear. Buckingham presents the petition developed by Stillington for Richard to be king, based on bastardy of Edward IV's children.

Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed on Gloucester's orders

26th

Delegates of lords and knights duly visit Richard at Baynard Castle, and urge him to take the throne

Gloucester sits in the King's chair at the Court of the King's Bench in Westminster hall

28th

Official letter to the Captain of Calais announces that his oath of loyalty to Edward V is no longer valid due to his illegitimacy

JULY

3rd

By now, troops from the north have arrived at London. Mancini claims there to be 6,000.

6th

Coronation of Gloucester as Richard III

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/10/187-edward-v/feed/21186 The King is Alive!https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/03/186-long-live-the-king/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/03/186-long-live-the-king/#commentsSun, 03 Jul 2016 11:08:30 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/03/186-long-live-the-king/Read More]]>It was critical that the heir to the throne, the young Edward, was tutored and governed to be brought up to be a successful king – and so Rivers was given the job, in Ludlow on the Welsh borders, and there was time. Then in 1483 the king fell ill. There's A bit of a fly by about the main players too this week – what is that stuff about the Woodvilles all about?

Edward V

Edward's life didn't start that well of course – born in the Sanctuary of Westminster, with Dad overseas, a fugitive. But once things were back on track, he emerged again in 1473, when Edward was installed with his own household at Ludlow Castle. His maternal uncle Rivers was appointed his Governor; Lord Richard Grey, Edward’s half-brother his Treasurer, and Thomas Vaughan his Chamberlain. Sent away at the age of 3 – life was tough. He had civic duties too – at the age of 4, he returned to Westminster to be keeper of the realm while Edward IV was on campaign in France. Free sweets for everyone!

Edward began his formal education, under the strict guidance of rules laid down by his father King Edward IV. There's a nice letter that survives – you can see it on the War of the Roses section of my website, here.

Now, we don’t get much of an insight in the young Edward Vth; just a little glimpses, through Dominic Mancini, the Italian who visited England in 1482-3 and wrote a famous description of the political events. He said of the young Edward:

‘He had such dignity in his own person, and in his face such charm that however much they might gaze, he never wearied the eyes of beholders."

Well that’s nice, isn’t it? And again:

"This context seems to require that I should not pass over in silence the talent of the youth. In word and deed, he gave so many proofs of his liberal education, of polite, nay rather scholarly attainments far beyond his age; all of these should be recounted, but require so such labor, that I shall lawfully excuse myself the effort. There is one thing I shall not omit, and that is, his special knowledge of literature, which enabled him to discourse elegantly, to understand fully and to disclaim most excellently from any work whether in verse or prose which came into his hands, unless it were from among the more abstruse authors.’

Essentially, Rivers seems to have done his job well, and if Mancini is to be at all trusted, here was a young man who shared Woodville's interests. At key points in 1483 when his father died, Edward was to show that he felt close to his uncles, Rivers and also Richard Grey.

Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers

Anthony Woodville (1440-1483) is in many ways an impressive character; a man of many parts, many talents and interests – a renaissance man, and very much more than a man obsessed by political power – this is no Warwick the Kingmaker. As the eldest son of Richard Woodville, first Earl Rivers, and Jacquetta of Luxemburg, Anthony was the brother of the Queen Elizabeth Woodville. Renaissance man he might have been, but the Woodville inheritance was very unimpressive in terms of income – part of the reason the peerage looked down on the Woodvilles so much. However, things were helped when he married and became Lord Scales in 1460; although his new wife legally brought him no rights to her lands, in common with the king and Duke of Gloucester, Anthony managed to bend the laws, and ended up retaining them – eventually they ended up with his brother Edward Woodville, to the loss of the heirs of the original Lord Scales. It's a point worth remembering; although Anthony Woodville is in many ways and attractive character, like any other magnate he was utterly ruthless in matters of land and inheritance – the papers of his agent apparently show him to be a hard headed business man. He became Earl Rivers when his father died at the hands of Warwick in 1469.

Woodville interests were in some ways traditional – war, religion, family & wealth, the tournament. At the first he had some success, but was an occasional player – or at least according to his station; he was in London in 1470 when the Bastard of Fauconberg attacked, took part in Edward IV's campaign in France, was one of Gloucester's commanders in the Scottish campaign, that sort of thing. The rest, he often seemed to take a little further than was absolutely necessary – and maybe this is why he stands among the Woodville clan. In religion, he was famously found to wear a hair shirt when he died; everyone was so impressed it became an object of veneration and pilgrimage (I must remember to donate my string vest to someone in my will). And in a decade when the story is one of grasping, power mad Woodvilles, it's head was wasting valuable networking time by going on crusade and pilgrimage – in Portugal, Santiago, Rome and Italy.

He was also a famous jouster; the most famous was in 1467 when he jousted with Antoine, the Bastard of Burgundy for 2 days at Smithfield. On the first day, when they fought on horseback, the Bastard's horse was killed; on the second, when they fought with axes, Woodville held his own and the joust was declared drawn. Next year, at the marriage celebrations of Margaret of York, he broke eleven lances with Adolf of Cleves. Despite that hairshirt thing, he was a full and enthusiastic participant in the whole pageantry of the joust; so for example in the marriage celebrations of Anne of Mowbray to Richard of York, he fought in the habit of a white hermit.

In his literary interests, Woodville was a little more exceptional. He was clearly interested in the Italian Renaissance; he translated “Les Dictes Moraux des Philosophes” whilst in the Prince of Wales’ household and had his “The Dictes and Saying of the Philosophers” printed by Caxton in 1477, and was thus not only a writer but an earliest patron of Caxton and the new fangled invention.

Woodville at one point said that the vicissitudes of life had led him to devote his life to God. Maybe this sense of perspective, with a tinge of fatalism was why in the second reign of Edward, he did not take up the opportunity to become the leading political figure he could have become. But in 1483 he wielded enormous influence through the job of tutor and governor of the young Prince of Wales, the future Edward V.

In 1483, there was no sign of any animosity between Gloucester and this particular Woodville – indeed rather the opposite. Rivers had asked Gloucester to arbitrate in a dispute he had, which implies closeness and trust; Rivers was one of the commanders of Gloucester's Scottish campaign.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/07/03/186-long-live-the-king/feed/2185 Edward the Kinghttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/26/185-edward-the-king/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/26/185-edward-the-king/#respondSun, 26 Jun 2016 17:02:02 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/26/185-edward-the-king/Read More]]>The 1470's were a marked contrast to the 1460's; a decade of complete calm, of control and authority. How did Edward do it?

Edward the King

A few quotes might give a misleading impression of Edward IV. Dominic Mancini:

He was licentious in the extreme. Moreover it was said that he had been most insolent to numerous women after he had subdued them, for, as soon as he grew weary of dalliance, he gave up the ladies much against their will to the other courtiers. He pursued with no discrimination the married and the unmarried, the noble and lowly, However, he took none by force.

In food and drink he was most immoderate; it was his habit so I have learned to take an emetic for the delight of gorging his stomach once more. For this reason…he had grown fat in the loins

No one challenges the idea that Edward was a good time king. But Edward was also an active leader and governor. He was immersed in the daily business of governing his kingdom; he fostered trade, brought the royal finances under control. He is also credited with starting towards the direction of the modern state – using the royal household to manage rather than the cumbersome Exchequer and Chancery. Edward was probably not a great innovator; it would be left to the Tudors to create the bureaucracy that serviced the early modern state, but he was a master at the art of medieval kingship – managing his great men and barons, balancing their needs and ambitions, providing confidence and leadership.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/26/185-edward-the-king/feed/0184 Edward’s Foreign Gloryhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/19/184-edwards-foreign-glory/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/19/184-edwards-foreign-glory/#respondSun, 19 Jun 2016 17:59:32 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/19/184-edwards-foreign-glory/Read More]]>Edward IV fancied himself as a latter day Edward III, and with his love of the Garter tradition on the one hand and his determination to gain revenge for French support for Lancaster, a European adventure looked on the cards.

The House of Burgundy

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/19/184-edwards-foreign-glory/feed/0183 The Brothers Yorkhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/12/183-the-brothers-york/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/12/183-the-brothers-york/#commentsSun, 12 Jun 2016 09:38:17 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/12/183-the-brothers-york/Read More]]>They had a complicated relationship – Edward, Clarence and Richard; Clarence and Richard had often been left together with Cecily and Margaret while Edward was with his father. In the 1470s, things came to a head.

George, Duke of Clarence (1449-1478)

George's reputation has been shaped to a degree by Shakespeare, and the famous line 'false, fleeting, perjur'd Clarence'. Well, much as we might point out that Shakespeare was a thoroughly dull sort of chap, but anyway his job was to entertain, not give a history lesson, for once he might well be on the money. Clarence's behaviour as a rebel with Warwick against his own brother had been outrageous; Edward had forgiven, though unlikely he'd forgotten. Clarence could have sat tight and thanks the stars for his luck; he did not such thing. The fight between Clarence and Gloucester for Warwick the Kingmaker's inheritance demonstrated his greed, his defence of Thomas Burdett arrogance and stupidity, in his murder of Ankarette Twynho, brutality.

Richard, Duke of Gloucester (1452 – 1485)

More ink has been spilled about Richard, so I won't go on. At this point, Richard has very much showed his worth to his brother. He refused to be seduced by Warwick and Clarence, stayed steadfastly loyal to Edward. He'd fought by his side at Barnet and Tewkesbury and proved himself. At 5 foot 8, relatively slight build, Richard had developed Scoliosis and therefore his shoulder may have looked higher than his left; but whatever his physical stature, he'd shown himself loyal and effective. in 1471 he was therefore handsomely rewarded by Edward and given the Neville lands in the north, and leadership in the north over Percy.

The Warwick inheritance

Here's a quick and easy family tree which helps illustrate the point about the Warwick inheritance

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/12/183-the-brothers-york/feed/2182 Games and Beastshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/05/182-games-and-beasts/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/05/182-games-and-beasts/#commentsSun, 05 Jun 2016 09:00:34 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/05/182-games-and-beasts/Read More]]>A chance to go into some byways, away from politics and talk about how medieval folk enjoyed themselves; the games they played in medieval days, from Football to Stoolball, from chess to skittles. And then,then completely unconnected, some of domesticated animals common in the Middle Ages – dogs, cats, horses and so on, where they came from, what they were called, how worked with man.

Received wisdom is that lapdogs and dogs for pure companionship were not a medieval thing, they were far too practical. Well, here’s a few things then.

Firstly there’s the poet and writer Christine de Pisan (1364-1430). Here’s a picture of Christine writing away. Tell me if that little hound is designed for anything practical? Look me in the eye when you answer.

Plus, here’s a quote from the 15th century:

‘a greyhound, mastiff or little dog, whether on the road, or at table, or in bed, always stays close to the person who gives him food and ignores all others, being distant and shy with them. Even if far away, the dog always has his master in his heart. Even if his master whips or throws stones at the dog, the dog will still follow him, wagging his tail and lying down in front of his masters to placate him. The dog will follow the master through rivers, woods, thieves and battles’

Medieval man knew their dogs. Anybody’s for a sandwich.

A map of Smithfield market

Here’s a map of Smithfield Market in the Middle Ages, from Know your London; the names around the market are interesting…some have now disappeared.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/06/05/182-games-and-beasts/feed/2181a Arthur by David McLainhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/29/181a-arthur-by-david-mclain/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/29/181a-arthur-by-david-mclain/#respondSun, 29 May 2016 09:27:41 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/29/181a-arthur-by-david-mclain/A third guest episode by David McLain. This time about Arthur, King of the Britons…

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/29/181a-arthur-by-david-mclain/feed/0181 The 15th C Rural Economyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/22/181-the-15th-c-rural-economy/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/22/181-the-15th-c-rural-economy/#respondSun, 22 May 2016 14:52:06 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/22/181-the-15th-c-rural-economy/Read More]]>We know that the Magnates and peerage made some cutbacks and prettified fewer of their residences – but what of the Gentry, who by and large would have 1 or 2 manors? And the peasantry and their yardland?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/22/181-the-15th-c-rural-economy/feed/0180 Lives and Loves of the Gentryhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/15/180-lives-and-loves-of-the-gentry/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/15/180-lives-and-loves-of-the-gentry/#respondSun, 15 May 2016 14:46:42 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/15/180-lives-and-loves-of-the-gentry/Read More]]>Through the 15th century the Gentry become firmly established as the real rulers of the localities; and an enterprising part of England's economy. So it seems worth finding out a bit more about them.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/15/180-lives-and-loves-of-the-gentry/feed/0179 The New Farmershttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/08/179-the-new-farmers/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/08/179-the-new-farmers/#commentsSun, 08 May 2016 09:25:50 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/08/179-the-new-farmers/Read More]]>After a period of grace, the 15th Century posed serious challenges for Magnates and the rural economy – prices fell, wages rose, Magnates had to cancel parties. But every cloud has its silvery lining; and trouble for some was opportunity for others – the new Farmers.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/05/08/179-the-new-farmers/feed/3178 The 15th C Economy Ihttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/24/178-the-15th-c-economy-i/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/24/178-the-15th-c-economy-i/#commentsSun, 24 Apr 2016 15:13:50 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/24/178-the-15th-c-economy-i/Read More]]>A rest from politics. The population of England remained stagnant or falling throughout 15th century. But that didn't meant there was no opportunity for towns or for commerce. You just had to look for it a bit harder.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/24/178-the-15th-c-economy-i/feed/4177 High Noon at Tewkesburyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/17/177-high-noon-at-tewkesbury/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/17/177-high-noon-at-tewkesbury/#commentsSun, 17 Apr 2016 09:13:25 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/17/177-high-noon-at-tewkesbury/Read More]]>Edward's troubles were not over with the victory at Barnet. He still faced two more invasions – the Queen and Prince, and Fauconberg in the South East. It was the final showdown between Lancaster and York.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/17/177-high-noon-at-tewkesbury/feed/2176 The Readeptionhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/10/176-the-readeption/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/10/176-the-readeption/#respondSun, 10 Apr 2016 10:33:18 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/10/176-the-readeption/Read More]]>In 1470, Henry VIth was released by Warwick from the Tower, and re-established as the rightful king of England. The Usurper Edward IV was banished forever. Sadly for the Lancastrians, Edward IV was determined to reclaim the throne when he landed at Ravenspur in 1471.

Here are some handy maps to help you navigate through the events of the year. They constitute plot spoilers, though!

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/10/176-the-readeption/feed/0175 An Unholy Alliancehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/03/175-an-unholy-alliance/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/03/175-an-unholy-alliance/#commentsSun, 03 Apr 2016 11:06:07 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/03/175-an-unholy-alliance/Read More]]>In 1470 the spin of the wheel of fortune was dizzying. Warwick had won, lost, won…where it ended nobody knew. But the most extraordinary thing of all was an alliance to be made, with the help of Warwick's 14 year old daughter, Anne.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/04/03/175-an-unholy-alliance/feed/1174 Warwick’s Rubiconhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/03/20/174-warwicks-rubicon/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/03/20/174-warwicks-rubicon/#commentsSun, 20 Mar 2016 15:57:36 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/03/20/174-warwicks-rubicon/Read More]]>In 1468, Warwick had a decision to make – as he himself said, 'It is a matter of being either Master or Varlet'.

George had chosen the church as his career, in time-honoured fashion. The suspicion is that being a Neville had a good deal more to do with his elevation to his appointments as Bishop of Exeter and then Archbishopric of York than either his saintliness or his learning and erudition. As far as saintliness is concerned, that’s probably fair do’s, but learning he clearly had some. But such learning as he had was accompanied by a remarkably large dose of grandeur and magnificence. So he had been through the University of Oxford, and he had done most of the presentations and arguments required of him. But as he’d studied, he’d been fast tracked, while he maintained magnificent rooms in Balliol College; his graduation was marked by a feast so splendid that they’d had to relax the rules of the university to allow it. It was a love of splendour and display that had all the hallmarks of his aristocratic background. But nonetheless he was a man of considerable talent and competence. He might have been largely an absentee Bishop of Exeter, but he governed effectively through subordinates; as Chancellor for three years he was efficient and competent until removed by Edward. He impressed even his Italian peers with the sophistication of his learning and rhetoric and diplomatic talents. George Neville was a talented, silver tongued example of the aristocratic churchman, and that meant he was a leader of the church – but still in every way a player in national politics and a Neville through and through.

George, Duke of Clarence, 1449-1478

Clarence is 19 where we are now in 1468. He’d been welcomed into the royal household by his brother, made Duke of Clarence, and been given lands in the West country, in Staffordshire near the welsh borders. He was also a man with talent; smooth, elegantly attractive, sharp witted and clever in his speech. The Italian humanist and scholar Dominic Mancini visited England, and along with describing Edward’s philanderings, described Clarence as:

possessed of such mastery of popular eloquence that nothing upon which he set his heart seemed difficult for him to achieve

And there’s evidence of this talent when he could bring himself to apply it, evidence of a competent landowner and magnate, managing his tenants and subordinates.

But Clarence’s talents led him into all the wrong areas. There’s an element of the Humphrey Duke of Gloucester about Clarence; as the king’s eldest brother, he was at the moment also his heir, and he expected this to give him special privileges in the running of the realm and influence over his brother. He was dazzled by his own importance and magnificence; he ran an absolutely stonkingly large household, a kind of alternative court at his castle of Tutbury in Staffordshire, which cost £4,500 a year to run, an extraordinary sum, a house of 400 souls, bigger than the royal household. He was in love with himself, willful and un self-disciplined, shallow and spoiled. His talents led him only to pursue his own self interest, and with apparently no moral compass politics meant for him scheming, plotting and power broking rather than any responsibility of leadership and loyalty. Worse for Clarence was that though on the face of it Edward was generous to his brother and welcomed him into the royal household, there was a reluctance and caution about Edward’s attitude to Clarence that is entirely absent from Edward’s attitude to his youngest brother, Richard of Gloucester; somehow Clarence was treated at arm’s length, was never quite given the responsibility that his status would seem to demand. Edward was no fool; Edward had an idea of his brother’s essential unreliability.

John Neville, Earl of Northumberland and Marquis of Montague, 1431-1471

George and Warwick’s other brother, John Neville, looked as though he might make different choices. John Neville had been a rock for Edward’s first years; firmly holding the north against all comers, supressing the Lancastrian revolts and Scottish invasions, hero of the battle of Hedgley Moor and Hexham. Edward had rewarded him handsomely; now Earl of Northumberland, he’d been given many of the old Percy estates, as Henry Percy languished in the Tower of London for his family’s support for the Lancastrians. John Neville was as concerned as any magnate to grow his power and lands and influence – but loyalty to the throne seemed to be paying dividends, and whether his brothers could persuade him otherwise was open to question – with him, Warwick’s chances would be greatly improved, without them they’d be seriously weakened

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/03/13/173-rivers-rising/feed/2172 A Royal Marriagehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/02/21/172-a-royal-marriage/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/02/21/172-a-royal-marriage/#commentsSun, 21 Feb 2016 11:44:41 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/02/21/172-a-royal-marriage/Read More]]>The first three years of Edward's reign were spent dealing stamping on the fires of the Lancastrian resistance. But then, he found time for something much more controversial than dis-embowelling, and he found it under an oak tree.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/02/21/172-a-royal-marriage/feed/3171 Two Rulershttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/02/07/171-two-rulers/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/02/07/171-two-rulers/#commentsSun, 07 Feb 2016 16:16:35 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/02/07/171-two-rulers/Read More]]>In the aftermath of Towton, Edward started his work to restore a broad based regime – crushing the recalcitrant, welcoming the turncoats, re-establishing royal justice. He also had a party. Margaret meanwhile traveled to build support for another return.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/02/07/171-two-rulers/feed/1170 This Fair White Rosehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/31/170-this-fair-white-rose/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/31/170-this-fair-white-rose/#commentsSun, 31 Jan 2016 11:59:01 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/31/170-this-fair-white-rose/Read More]]> In 1461 the Queen failed to seize London,and retreated to the north. Warwick and Edward walked through London's empty gates and then chased north for the largest, and bloodiest battle of English soil.

The Towton Campaign, 1461

After the victory at St Albans over Warwick, the queen lost her nerve, and failed to seize London. As Edward and Warwick met in the Costwolds, her opportunity vanished, and her army retreated north to York. Edward and Warwick marched their newly revived army and fortunes into London, to be greeted by enthusiastic crowds. Edward was acclaimed king in Westminster Hall.

The Yorkists left in groups; Norfolk left to raise an army in East Anglia; then Warwick on 7th March 1461, to sweep by the West Midlands to raise his tenants as he went. Next Fauconberg with the footsoldiers and last Edward on 13th March. By the time they reached the castle at Pontefract they were re-united, except for Norfolk, who was a day behind.

The Yorkists had to cross the River Aire at Ferrybridge, but were attacked by Clifford and his troop of 500, the 'Flower of Craven', reivers from the borders. Fauconberg outflanked Clifford by crossing upstream at Castleford, catching and slaughtering Clifford and his men just a few miles from Somerset and his main Lancastrian army. Edmund of Rutland had been avenged.

Now that the river crossing had been forced, Edward was able to march up onto the way to York, where near Towton he came face t face with Somerset and the Lancastrians, while Margaret and the king waited anxiously in York

It was Palm Sunday – 29th March 1461.

The Battle of Towton, 29th May 1461

Famously, Towton was the biggest and bloodiest battle fought on British soil. And it was a long, hard fought slog. During the fight, Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk arrived with his 5,000 men to attack the Lancastrian flank – even that did not turn the tide. But eventually the Lancastrians broke and fled, to be slaughtered in their thousands. Margaret and Henry fled York just ahead of the victorious new king – Edward IVth.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/31/170-this-fair-white-rose/feed/5169 King without Rulehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/17/169-king-without-rule/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/17/169-king-without-rule/#respondSun, 17 Jan 2016 11:54:30 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/17/169-king-without-rule/Read More]]>After the victory at Northampton and the Act of Accord, it looked as though all Richard of York had to do was wait or the crown to be his. But in the north and west, the Lancastrian opposition was growing.

The Campaigns of 1460 and 1461

Wakefield, 30th December 1460

Just to help you follow all the wandering around, here are 3 maps which give you an idea of the what goes on in the fights and struggles of this episode.

While Queen Margaret fled to Scotland to arrange a deal with Mary of Guelders, Lancastrian supporters were ordered to gather at Hull. The Yorkists split up – Warwick stayed in London, Edward Earl of March was sent to the West to deal with Jasper Tudor, and Salisbury and York went to the north. On 30th December, York and Salisbury met Somerset in Battle outside their castle of Sandal, and the result was a crushing defeat. Reputedly, as York was captured the Lancastrians in the battle:

…stood him [York ] on a little anthill and placed on his head, as if a crown, a vile garland made of reeds, just as the Jews did to the Lord, and bent the knee to him, saying in jest, 'Hail King, without rule. Hail King, without ancestry, Hail leader and prince, with almost no subjects or possessions'. And having said this and various other shameful and dishonourable things to him, at last they cut off his head.

Certainly the heads of York and Salisbury found themselves pinned to Micklegate Bar in York when Queen Margaret arrived from Scotland, with Scottish troops and a treaty with Scotland – support at the price of the fortresses of Roxborough and Berwick.

Mortimer's Cross, 2nd February 1461

There was better news for the Yorkists in the West. The Earl of Wiltshire with troops from his Irish estates joined with JasperTudor, and together they marched towards Hereford, intending to meet with the Queen as she marched south to London. Edward of March had started towards London to join with Warwick when he'd heard of the defeat at Wakefield; but instead turned north to head off Tudor and Wiltshire. His victory at Mortimer;s Cross gave the Yorkists hope, and established Edward's reputation as a warrior and commander. Edward turned to march east to London.

St Albans, 17th February 1461

Margaret, Somerset, the Lancastrian lords and the Scottish troops burned and ravaged their way south. Their reputation went before them, and the brutality of the army did the Lancastrian cause great damage. Warwick gathered a fresh army, with loans from the City of London, and Burgundian handgunners; Edward was far away, but with the Duke of Norfolk, Baron Montagu and Earl of Suffolk, Warwick's army took up a defensive, fortified position in St Albans, blocking the roads southwards.

Battle was joined late on the 17th February – Edward was till far away in the Cotswolds. During 16th and 17th, Somerset had swung his army westwards, and as the entered St Albans on Warwick's left flank. In the confusion of trying to adjust, Warwick's army was routed. Warwick managed to pull together a remnant of his army, and marched west to find Edward, who had reached the Cotswolds. Margaret and the Prince Edward found Henry sitting under a tree laughing and singing. Margaret prepared to march on London and reclaim the government of England

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/17/169-king-without-rule/feed/0168 With Horns and Trumpetshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/10/168-with-horns-and-trumpets/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/10/168-with-horns-and-trumpets/#commentsSun, 10 Jan 2016 12:15:49 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/10/168-with-horns-and-trumpets/Read More]]>Warwick swashed and buckled his way up and down the channel until the Yorkists were ready to invade England again. But on his return from Ireland with horns and trumpets blowing, Richard of York had a shock for his allies.

The Parliament of Devils, 1459

Here was revenge for the house of Lancaster. At the parliament, the Yorkist lords were attainted – that is they were guilty of treachery, and their lives were forfeit. But a Bill of Attainder was much worse than that, because it struck at what was really important to your 15th century magnate – his family. Because the Bill of Attainder also stripped all members of the family of their riches, including any heirs. It was in effect wiping the family from the face of history.

The Battle of Northampton

Warwick, Salisbury and the earl of March (the future king Edward) landed in Kent in June 1460, and quickly marched north to London – where they were welcomed. Warwick and March led the army as quickly as they could towards the royal court at Coventry. Buckingham and the Queen were caught hopping – but constructed strong defensive works on the banks of the river Nene at Northampton. The Lancastrians may have numbered 5,000, and the Yorkists 10,000.

The result was a complete rout for the Yorkists – because one of the Lancastrian commanders, Grey of Ruthin, deserted to the Yorkists. Buckingham, Egrement (one of the Percies!) and Shrewsbury all lost their lives and king Henry was captured – laughing and singing in his tent.

Richard of York claims the throne

Richard landed at Chester on 8th September – and grandly made his way south with a great fuss, his sword carried before him – like a king. Parliament was assembled. The Registrum Abbatiae Johannis Whethamstede records what happened:

…the Duke of York, with the pomp of a great following, arrived in no small exultation of spirit; for he came with horns and trumpets and men at arms, and very many other servants. And entering the palace there, he marched straight through the great hall until he came to that solemn room where the king was accustomed to hold parliament with his commons. And when he arrived there, he advanced with determined step until he reached the royal throne, and there he laid his hand on the cushion…like a man about to take possession of his right, and kept his hand there for a short while. At last, drawing it back, he turned his face towards the people, and standing still under the cloth of state, he looked attentively at the gazing assembly.

In fact, Richard's actions shocked and horrified Lancastrians, neutrals and Warwick and Salisbury. But a deal was worked out – Henry would reign, but York and his heirs would succeed him. Whether or not Margaret of Anjou would agree was another matter.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/10/168-with-horns-and-trumpets/feed/3167b Hundred Years’ War – Formigny and Castillon by Carl Ryletthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/03/hundred-years-war-formigny-and-castillon-by-carl-rylett/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/03/hundred-years-war-formigny-and-castillon-by-carl-rylett/#commentsSun, 03 Jan 2016 11:48:03 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/03/hundred-years-war-formigny-and-castillon-by-carl-rylett/Read More]]>I found it rather difficult to cover the critical events and battles around Formigny and Casttillon in quite the same depth as I covered Agincourt, Crecy and Poitiers. Obviously, I should be more objective.

But Carl Rylett of the History of Europe – Key Battles podcast is made of sterner stuff, so here he is. If you want to know more about Carl's podcast, check him out on iTunes or hop along to his website here.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2016/01/03/hundred-years-war-formigny-and-castillon-by-carl-rylett/feed/3167a The Fall of Constantinople by Paul Vincenthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/20/167-the-fall-of-constantinople-by-paul-vincent/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/20/167-the-fall-of-constantinople-by-paul-vincent/#respondSun, 20 Dec 2015 16:02:41 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/20/167-the-fall-of-constantinople-by-paul-vincent/Read More]]>The fall of Constantinople in 1453 is one of the most momentous events in world history. Sure, the power of the Roman Empire had long since faded; but here at last was the end of the story that had started with Romulus and Remus on the mountainside in Latium.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/20/167-the-fall-of-constantinople-by-paul-vincent/feed/0167 The Triumph of Lancasterhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/13/167-the-triumph-of-lancaster/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/13/167-the-triumph-of-lancaster/#respondSun, 13 Dec 2015 12:18:57 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/13/167-the-triumph-of-lancaster/Read More]]>In 1459 the trigger point was finally reached; after a year of phony war, both sides preparing for war, the call for a great council in 1459 proving the trigger point. By the end of 1459 the fortune of one of the two sides would lie in ruins.

The swashbuckling Warwick

Between 1457 and 1457 Warwick was in his element as Captain of Calais. He solved the problem of feeding and paying his men by frankly turning to piracy. But with his raids on Italian merchants at Tilbury docks, on a fleet of 28 Spanish ships, on a merchant of Lubeck, Warwick was playing to the xenophobia and patriotism of the London Gallery. And the gallery loved it.

"All the commons of this land had him in great praise and love…and so made his reputation as the greatest knight living"

The Battle of Blore Heath, 23rd September 1459

Through 1459 both sides spoke of peace and prepared for war. When the Queen ordered Warwick, Salisbury and York to a great council, it was the end – they knew the council would not be a happy time for them. Salisbury was at Middleham in Yorkshire; York was at Ludlow on the Welsh border; Warwick at Calais. The signal came from Warwick landing in Kent, and making his way towards Wales. Salisbury came south, while the Queen charged Audley to cut Salisbury off before he could reach Ludlow and York. In this he suceeded.

The two armies faced each other on opposing ridges, with a stream between. Audley with 10,000 men and Salisbury with 5,000, neither keen to attack through the boggy ground and up the hill in the teeth of the inevitable arrow storm. Salisbury feigned a retreat – Audley fell for it and attacked. The result was a disaster for Lancaster, with Audley left dead on the field along with 2,000 others, and Salisbury free to continue to Ludlow.

Ludford Bridge

At Worcester cathedral, Warwick, Salisbury and York swore to fight together and protect each other to the end. On 10th October from Ludlow, with Cecily Neville and York's family the 3 wrote a letter to the King professing their loyalty. O n 12th October the royal army appeared on the other side of the bridge that defended Ludlow – Ludford Bridge.

The royal army was enormous. on the night of 12th October, Andrew Trollope and 400 men of Calais deserted to the King's army. On the morning of the 13th, the Yorkist army found their leaders fled – York and his son Edmund of Rutland to Ireland, Warwick, Salisbury and York's eldest son and heir Edward Earl of March to North Devon, thence to Guernsey and finally to Calais. The Yorkist cause lay in ruins.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/13/167-the-triumph-of-lancaster/feed/0166 The Reign of Queen Margarethttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/06/166-the-reign-of-queen-margaret/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/06/166-the-reign-of-queen-margaret/#commentsSun, 06 Dec 2015 09:36:53 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/06/166-the-reign-of-queen-margaret/Read More]]>In 1455 it briefly looked as though York had won; but in fact it solved nothing – the king remained the centre of power, and the king was weak. By 1457, he had lost his status as Protector, and the Queen was effectively the new ruler of England.

By 1458, Queen Margaret had remove the court to Coventry and Kenilworth, centres of Lancastrian power. There she gather around a her and the king a court to her liking. Salisbury was never invited, York only twice – and then was humiliated.

But then a French fleet raided and burned Sandwich. Nothing could demonstrate ho w low England had fallen. The raid coincided with a return of the king's lucidity, and court returned to London. Henry, such as he was a force for anything, was a force for peace. His queen was ruling for the sake of a faction – the Beauforts – and king Henry could see that.

And so Henry ordered a Love Day. The idea was that all the nobility would walk together, arm in arm, through the streets of London to St Paul's Cathedral. There they would sing and pray together, and all would be well.

All happened as the King ordered. Young Somerset and Salisbury walk at the front; Warwick and Exeter walked arm in arm, the King walked in the middle and York and Margaret brought up the rear. All it achieved was to through the rivalries into clear and public relief – the Love Day solved nothing, because it could not address the basic problem of the king's weakness.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/12/06/166-the-reign-of-queen-margaret/feed/4165 Bloodshedhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/11/29/165-bloodshed/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/11/29/165-bloodshed/#commentsSun, 29 Nov 2015 12:53:54 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/11/29/165-bloodshed/Read More]]>In 1455, the quality and nature of the arguments and disputes about the king's fitness to reign and the need to reform the way England was governed changed very significantly. At St Albans, blood was spilled.

In 1455, Henry, newly restored to sanity, issued writs for an odd sounding parliament at Leicester. Salisbury, Warwick and York didn't buy it - here was another set up, just like Dartford. So they gathered an army, and marched, professing their loyalty as they went.

Somerset and the king seemed blind to the dangers, and set off from London none the less. At Albans, they suddenly realised they were in trouble, facing an army of 3,000, while the king had only 2,000 with him. Henry sacked Somerset in an attempt to appease York – but to no avail. The battle of St Albans was joined.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/11/29/165-bloodshed/feed/6164 Madnesshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/11/01/164-madness/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/11/01/164-madness/#commentsSun, 01 Nov 2015 08:24:47 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/11/01/164-madness/Read More]]>In 1452 and 1453 Henry enjoyed a brief spell where he was on top of his job after the events at Dartford. But fate had something in mind.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/11/01/164-madness/feed/4163 The Cousins’ Warhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/10/18/163-the-cousins-war/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/10/18/163-the-cousins-war/#commentsSun, 18 Oct 2015 09:44:08 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/10/18/163-the-cousins-war/Read More]]>How did previous generations view the Wars of the Roses? What are the interpretations of the Wars of the Roses now? This, and an introduction to some key families, are what this week is all about.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/10/18/163-the-cousins-war/feed/6162 The Return of Yorkhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/10/11/162-the-return-of-york/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/10/11/162-the-return-of-york/#commentsSun, 11 Oct 2015 08:34:08 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/10/11/162-the-return-of-york/Read More]]>It's still 1450. Because it was something of an eventful year. Richard of York, sat in Ireland, was worried – his name had been bandied about by Jack Cade and his rebels. See what happens…

Some links

First of all,m if you don't know the History of Byzantium, and would like to, hop along to Robin Pierson's website. It's a great series.

Secondly, I'm starting up a series of Wars of the Roses pages, just to help you all navigate through the mess of families that hop in and out of each others' beds. Look at the Left Hand Nav bar; or to read about a few of the major families in 1450, follow this link to Major Families...

Richard Duke of York, 1411-1460

Son of the disgraced Richard Earl of Cambridge, despite his long minority Richard was born to the fortunes of York and Mortimer, and descended from The Duke of Clarence, Edward III's son. There was no sign before 1450 that Richard was anything other than a loyal servant of the king – serving in France as Lieutenant General. Then he was ousted, and replaced by Edmund Beaufort. Historians disagree about how Richard took this – but being appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland may very well not have been the reward it sounds like – in Ireland he was safely far away from the king. Richard was alienated by a feeling that he was denied his birthright – being in the closest counsels of the king.

His return in 1450 was dramatic – he came without permission. Beaufort was now effectively the chief Minister of the king and Queen, and all 3 appeared to panic trying to prevent York's return.

By 1451, civil war was not inevitable; but a pattern of antipathy between Beaufort, Queen Margaret and York was becoming established, and York 's ambitions being thwarted.

Margaret of Anjou, 1430-1482

What to make of Margaret? It's always worth bearing in mind that women like Margaret who stepped outside the mould will be unfairly judged by contemporary chroniclers. From the start of her relationship with Henry, it seems both got on well – spending more time together than was expected of a king and queen at the time. She was reasonably traditional in her role, supporting her husband; though she spent freely; and appears frequently in the minutes of the King's council as grants were made 'by the queen's counsel'; so it appears she became more involved, and the political situation sharpened, and her husband's lack of capability .became more evident.,

After 8 years of marriage, by 1452 the couple still showed no signs of producing a child.

Livery Badges, Bastard feudalism and the Wars of the Roses

The prevailing theory about why the Wars of the Roses happened was, at one point very much about 'bastard feudalism'and the 'overmighty subjects'. The story goes that by the 15th century, the relationship between a lord and his retinue had changed – no longer based on an honest knight and his patch of land, but no a money fee, based on an 'indenture' or contract. And that as a result, lords traipsed around the countryside with massive retinues of followers. Which is true – they did. A magnate gave out robes of particular colours, and livery badges by which they might be known; and there were a lot of them; and the 15th century was a violent time. The general feeling is that this wasn't the fault of bastard feudalism; in earlier centuries, a magnates affinity was just as important. The reasons for the war had more to do with Henry VIth's failure to control his magnates.

But back to livery badges; below is one example, one of Henry VIth's badges. I've had a rootle around and tried to find the ones I could – guided, obviously, by that authoritative historical resource, the game Kingmaker…so you can find them all by clicking on this link to my page 'Livery Badges'.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/10/11/162-the-return-of-york/feed/10161 Captain of Kenthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/09/13/161-captain-of-kent/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/09/13/161-captain-of-kent/#commentsSun, 13 Sep 2015 11:36:35 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/09/13/161-captain-of-kent/Read More]]>1450 was an eventful year. The fall of Suffolk, and now Kent was once again in flames, just as it had been in 1381. This time the leader that emerged was one Jack Cade.

William Aiscough, Bishop of Salisbury: only a cameo appearance for this episode.

Jack Cade: Leader of the rebellion – again only a cameo appearance. Leader of the rebellion of 1450.

James Fiennes, Lord of Saye and Sele: Treasurer of England, and a nasty piece of work. Came to a sticky end.

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, 1402-1460

The Stafford family that are the holders of the title of the Duke of Buckingham, are of the blood royal; they are descended from Edward III’s youngest son, Thomas of Woodstock. Humphrey Stafford was a veteran of the Wars with France, and an elder statesman, and would basically remain loyal to the king and Queen, but be a voice of reason until he croaks, trying to bring the factions together.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/09/13/161-captain-of-kent/feed/8160 The Fall of Suffolk and Normandyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/16/160-the-fall-of-suffolk-ooh-and-france/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/16/160-the-fall-of-suffolk-ooh-and-france/#commentsSun, 16 Aug 2015 09:28:46 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/16/160-the-fall-of-suffolk-ooh-and-france/Read More]]>B y 1445, William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk was clearly Henry's most trusted adviser. He faced a difficult task – to steer a bankrupt nation into the harbor of peace. Avoiding the ship of France trying to sink her on the way in. Would they make it?

In this episode we are lucky enough to have another Weekly Word from Kevin Stroud, author of the History of English Podcast. If you like it, why not go the whole hog, and visit his website, The History of English Podcast.

Also you might want to look at the rather touching letter from William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk to his eight year old son, John. – it's on the website here.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/16/160-the-fall-of-suffolk-ooh-and-france/feed/3159 From Arras to Tourshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/09/159-from-arras-to-tours/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/09/159-from-arras-to-tours/#commentsSun, 09 Aug 2015 18:05:44 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/09/159-from-arras-to-tours/Read More]]>Through the late 1430's and early 1440's the situation in Normandy got no better, until a failed expedition convinced Henry and Suffolk that peace was required at any price. And the result was the Treaty of Tour and a royal marriage.

In this episode we are lucky enough to have another Weekly Word from Kevin Stroud, author of the History of English Podcast. If you like it, why not go the whole hog, and visit his website, The History of English Podcast.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/09/159-from-arras-to-tours/feed/8158 Catastrophe at Arrashttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/02/158-catastrophe-at-arras/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/02/158-catastrophe-at-arras/#commentsSun, 02 Aug 2015 09:26:14 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/02/158-catastrophe-at-arras/Read More]]>In December 1431, Henry VIth became the only king of England crowned king of France in France. Which sounds great. But in fact it was a sign of English weakness than English strength. And at Arras things got substantially worse.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/08/02/158-catastrophe-at-arras/feed/3157 Joan of Archttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/26/157-joan-of-arc/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/26/157-joan-of-arc/#commentsSun, 26 Jul 2015 08:52:36 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/26/157-joan-of-arc/Read More]]>In 1428, the English were still sweeping all before them. Then came a figure so famous, that she was selected by Bill and Ted for their history project – and what greater recognition can there be than that?

Joan of Arc

One reason that we know so much about Joan is that her trial was recorded in fine detail, and therefore we have an extraordinary insight. You can read it to. There's a translation to be found at the St Joan Centre, where you can read every word for yourself.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/26/157-joan-of-arc/feed/3156 Reivershttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/12/156-reivers/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/12/156-reivers/#commentsSun, 12 Jul 2015 12:42:46 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/12/156-reivers/Read More]]>There's really often little practical difference between what we call politics and some of what we call crime. Essentially it the history of the struggle for power by a bunch of aristocratic families. And a smidgen of life on the Borders.

The Borders

The history of the borders between the Scottish wars of independence and 1603, when the Scottish king also took the throne of England, is the story of a closed society that learned to cope with a life of constant danger and violence, and became warped as a result.

The Reivers were specialist fighters; trained through experience, built for

speed and flexibility. The essential component was the Hobbilar, or Hobby – small light. hardy horse. Then the Jack, the leather jacket, and the Steel Bonnet. Favoured weapons were lance and bow .

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/12/156-reivers/feed/3155 Henry VIth – The Wonder Yearshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/05/155-henry-vith-the-wonder-years/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/05/155-henry-vith-the-wonder-years/#commentsSun, 05 Jul 2015 09:20:19 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/05/155-henry-vith-the-wonder-years/Read More]]>While Bedford and talented commanders like Salisbury were alive, the cause of the English in France was far from dead. But in 1423, buoyed by the arrival of the Scots, the French launched a fresh campaign into Normandy, and quickly took the mighty town of Verneuil.

The Battle of Verneuil

The French offensive of 1424 started with a surprisingly easy capture of the town of Verneuil by the Scottish commander, Douglas. The English army was probably of the order of 8,500 men, probably with about 2,000 men at arms and the rest archers. The French and Scottish contingent was of the order of 16,000 strong.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/07/05/155-henry-vith-the-wonder-years/feed/2154 Henry VIth – A Weak Kinghttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/28/154-henry-vith-a-weak-king/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/28/154-henry-vith-a-weak-king/#commentsSun, 28 Jun 2015 10:49:19 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/28/154-henry-vith-a-weak-king/Read More]]>An introduction to a new reign – Henry VIth, a name to make grown men tremble – and to the political leaders that dominated it.

There are two common images of Henry VIth, The first is of Henry as a young man. Looking fine 'n all, but really rather lacking in gorm. And then there's an older one, where really he looks at the end of his tether.

To be honest, the range of opinion about Henry is pretty limited – but it is there. It's affected very much by the Wars of the Rose, which affects the view point.

So,m here's a comment on the reign from someone writing in the time of Edward IVth, the Yorkist king, while Henry is still alive in the tower:

"the realm of England was out of all good governance…for the king was a simpleton and led by evil counsellors, and owed them more than he had. His debts increased daily, but no payments were made; all the possessions and lordships that belonged to the crown the king had given away…for these misgovernances, and for many others, the hearts of the people were turned away from them that had the land in governance, and their blessings were turned to curses."

Not good then. With Henry's death, he begins to get rehabilitated, even in the time of Yorkist Richard III. Here's the story in those days:

‘How great his deserts were, by reason of the innocence of his life, his love of Go and the church, his patience in adversity, and his other remarkable virtues, is abundantly testified by the miracles which God has wrought in favour of those who have implored his intercession’

3 Other big players

Henry VIth had two uncles to look after him.

John, Duke of Bedford, Regent of France

John was a big powerful man, competent, pious but a man of letters and a patron of the arts. To him fell the job of maintaining the English realm of France while Henry was in his minority – and in particular, maintaining the Burgundian alliance. He was the right man for the job. And he was helped by his wife, Anne of Burgundy, 15 years his junior when they married in 1423. Anne and John seemed to have had a happy marriage and while they held court in Rouen and Paris, Lancastrian France and the Burgundian alliance had a chance of survival.

Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester

Humph was a different proposition. Also an enthusiastic patron of the arts, who built his palace at Greenwich into a centre of culture. But despite his self confidence and pride, somehow without his brother's competence and solidity. His marriage to Jacquetta of Hainault and military adventure to win her land – which incidentally belonged to the Duke of Burgundy – ended in failure, endangered the all-important alliance, and then he casually discarded Jacquetta. He had been appointed 'tutela', or Lord Protector to the young king by Henry Vth – which he claimed made him ruler of England during the minority. Parliament diasgreed; and by making him work as part of a Council of State made him, much to his fury, just primus inter pares.

Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester and Cardinal

We've met Beaufort before – Chancellor of England under both Henry IVth and Henry VIth, and now for periods under Henry VIth. He was a political player, and involved in an intense running rivalry for power with Gloucester. In 1425, their rivalry would flare up into outright conflict, leading to Beaufort's temporary downfall.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/28/154-henry-vith-a-weak-king/feed/5153a Wycliffe, Hus and Bohemiahttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/21/153a-wycliffe-hus-and-bohemia/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/21/153a-wycliffe-hus-and-bohemia/#commentsSun, 21 Jun 2015 10:48:08 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/21/153a-wycliffe-hus-and-bohemia/Read More]]>This week a guest episode on Wycliffe, Hus and their influence on the history of Bohemia. With many thanks to Pete Collman from the Bohemican Podcast, and Travis Dow of the History of Germany podcast.

You can find both podcasts by going to iTunes, or going to their websites below:

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/21/153a-wycliffe-hus-and-bohemia/feed/6153 The Medieval Working Womanhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/14/153-the-medieval-working-woman/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/14/153-the-medieval-working-woman/#commentsSun, 14 Jun 2015 05:40:20 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/14/153-the-medieval-working-woman/Read More]]>Only 4% of women remained unmarried in the middle ages, and therefore for both men and women working life was a matter of team work. In towns in particular, women might find their opportunities for specialised work more limited than men, but not impossible – women like Margery Kempe showed how the mould could be broken.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/14/153-the-medieval-working-woman/feed/3152 The Death of a Conquering Herohttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/07/152-the-death-of-a-conquering-hero/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/07/152-the-death-of-a-conquering-hero/#commentsSun, 07 Jun 2015 09:56:30 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/07/152-the-death-of-a-conquering-hero/Read More]]>Henry's talents ran as much to managing his back yard as it did to war; this week how Henry organised his kingdom for war, and the last days of his life. Plus a guest bonus from Kevin Stroud and 'The History of English'.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/06/07/152-the-death-of-a-conquering-hero/feed/2151 The Bridge at Montereauhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/31/151-the-bridge-at-montereau/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/31/151-the-bridge-at-montereau/#commentsSun, 31 May 2015 09:44:50 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/31/151-the-bridge-at-montereau/Read More]]>In 1420, Henry faced an uphill battle again; his negotiations had failed with both Dauphinists and Burgundians, and instead they'd patched it up. So he faced an alliance – Dauphinist, Armagnac, Orleanist, Burgundian – Scot – against the English. And then came a meeting on a bridge that changed everything.

For those of you who enjoyed Kevin Stroud's History of English segment, here's a link to his website and his estimable podcast – The History of English.

By the way…for some reason, Kevin's bit only comes out of one channel. Sorry about that, when I find a moment I'll put it right. For the moment, make sure you've got two speakers working.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/31/151-the-bridge-at-montereau/feed/5150a Grace Dieu and Henry Vth’s Proto-Royal Navy by Brandon Huebnerhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/24/150a-grace-dieu-and-henry-vths-proto-royal-navy-by-brandon-huebner/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/24/150a-grace-dieu-and-henry-vths-proto-royal-navy-by-brandon-huebner/#respondSun, 24 May 2015 09:32:19 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/24/150a-grace-dieu-and-henry-vths-proto-royal-navy-by-brandon-huebner/Read More]]>Henry Vth was the first monarch since Richard the Lion Heart to pay much attention to the English fleet. The experience of putting maybe as many as 1,500 ships onto the water to transport his army of 1415 to France made him realise that he needed a new solution.

This is an artist’s rendition of what Grace Dieu may have looked like before her maiden (and only) voyage.

This drawing shows the Grace Dieu’s high forecastle

On the left, the map shows the location of Hamble and Bursledon in relation to Southampton. On the right, the spot where the remains of the Grace Dieu are located in the River Hamble.

Harfleur!

]]>

https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/24/150a-grace-dieu-and-henry-vths-proto-royal-navy-by-brandon-huebner/feed/0150 Conquering Herohttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/17/150-conquering-hero/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/17/150-conquering-hero/#commentsSun, 17 May 2015 08:17:57 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/17/150-conquering-hero/Read More]]> By 1417, Henry had sorted out his support in England, and was able to launch a war of conquest in Normandy. After butchery at Caen, castles and towns fell, and by June 1418 the final and biggest prize stood before Henry – Rouen, second city of France.

Between 1417 and 1419, Henry and his captains took to war into Normandy, and the French were unable to raise effective resistance to support the towns as they were besieged. By 1418, Henry was before the walls of France's second city, Rouen, 70,000 citizens strong. It took 7 months before it fell, but its fall meant that Normandy was lost to France, and the road to Paris lay open.

The meeting of Henry and Catherine of Valois

Henry Vth and Catherine met first at the conference of Meulan in 1419, as he and John the Fearless tried to strike a deal. In fact one chronicler noted that the only thing to come out of the conference was love. There's more than a suggestion the Henry was genuinely smitten (though Catherine's views remain unknowable), above and beyond the normal verbiage of chroniclers.

In fact, the Meulan conference failed, and instead the Dauphinists and the Burgundians announced that they had resolved their differences and would once again fight together for king Charles VIth to throw the English invader from their lands. The truth is that neither Dauphin/Armagnac nor Duke John of Burgundy could give Henry what he wanted and remain a credible leader. It would take the events at the bridge of Montereau to achieve that.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/17/150-conquering-hero/feed/5149 Sex, Childbirth and Childrenhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/10/149-sex-childbirth-and-children/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/10/149-sex-childbirth-and-children/#commentsSun, 10 May 2015 08:20:40 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/10/149-sex-childbirth-and-children/Read More]]>Medieval understanding of physiology had an impact on attitudes to sex, just as much as did the teachings of the church. Though who knows how much it had an impact on everyday life. And something about how childbirth fitted into community life, and rearing the outcome.

Just to warn you it's an episode with the odd explicit bit, I have to say. Just so you know.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/05/10/149-sex-childbirth-and-children/feed/8148 Women and 1066, and Marriagehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/26/148-women-and-1066-and-marriage/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/26/148-women-and-1066-and-marriage/#commentsSun, 26 Apr 2015 11:15:20 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/26/148-women-and-1066-and-marriage/Read More]]>As far as women were concerned, was 1066 generally a Good Thing, a Bad Thing – or just a Thing? That’s the main item of debate this week, along with a bit about marriage, and a toe-curling piece about how to get out of an unwanted marriage contract by proving your partner failed to live up to their, um, duties.

A duty of sex

According to the teaching of the church, the point about marriage was to have children, and therefore both men and women had a legal responsibility to have sex in marriage unless both decided it was a bad idea. So the easiest way out of an unwanted marriage was to claim that your partner was unable to deliver the goods.

Here, from Henrietta Leyser’s book ‘Medieval Women’ is a quote from a case in York in 1433 when John was accused of just such a thing:

‘The …witness exposed her naked breasts and with her hands, warmed at the said fire, she held and rubbed the penis and testicles of the said John. And she embraced and frequently kissed the said John, and stirred him up in so far as she could to show his virility and potency, admonishing him for shame that he should then prove and render himself a man. And …the said penis was scarcely 3 inches long…remaining without any increase or decrease’

Determined to marry for love – Margery Paston

One of the church’s nicer sides was the teaching that actually no church wedding or oath was required for a couple to get married – a simple agreement between a woman and a man was sufficient. So when 20 year old Margery Paston fell in love with her family’s 30+ bailiff, Richard Calle, Margery was able to claim that she was already married.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/26/148-women-and-1066-and-marriage/feed/9147a The Pitfalls of being a Medieval Queen by Melisendehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/19/147a-the-pitfalls-of-being-a-medieval-queen-by-melisende/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/19/147a-the-pitfalls-of-being-a-medieval-queen-by-melisende/#commentsSun, 19 Apr 2015 09:48:35 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/19/147a-the-pitfalls-of-being-a-medieval-queen-by-melisende/Read More]]>Being a medieval queen could be a hazardous business – find why, and how, by Melisende of Outremer, and visit Melisende's blog, www.womenofhistory.blogspot.com.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/19/147a-the-pitfalls-of-being-a-medieval-queen-by-melisende/feed/1147 Women and Anglo Saxon Englandhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/12/147-women-and-anglo-saxon-england/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/12/147-women-and-anglo-saxon-england/#commentsSun, 12 Apr 2015 07:28:27 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/12/147-women-and-anglo-saxon-england/Read More]]>Unaccustomed as I am to social and economic history…here is the first of a bit of a thread over the next few weeks and months about some social stuff, and indeed with a bit of a focus on women. Due to popular demand. We start of this thread with a look at the status and role of women in Anglo Saxon England.

An Anglo Saxon Riddle

Here's that Riddle. Answer in the next episode, and please have a guess below in the comments – no searching the interweb!

I’m a wonderful thing, a joy to women,to neighbors useful. I injure no onewho lives in a village save only my slayer.I stand up high and steep over the bed;underneath I’m shaggy. Sometimes venturesa young and handsome peasant’s daughter,a maiden proud, to lay hold on me.She seizes me, red, plunders my head,fixes on me fast, feels straightwaywhat meeting me means when she thus approaches,a curly-haired woman. Wet is that eye.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/12/147-women-and-anglo-saxon-england/feed/14146 The Agincourt Campaign – Part III: The Battlehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/05/146-the-agincourt-campaign-part-iii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/05/146-the-agincourt-campaign-part-iii/#commentsSun, 05 Apr 2015 09:51:06 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/05/146-the-agincourt-campaign-part-iii/Read More]]>And so at last to one of England's most famous battles. Outnumbered and trapped, Henry and his English and Welsh faced the cream of the French warrior class.

The Duke of Alencon attacks the fallen Gloucester and his brother King Henry!! Note the absence of mud and blood – I think they'd have looked a little messier…

The Battle of Agincourt, October 25th 1415

You can let this animation run at it's own speed, or click pause and then move the show on as you wish with the 'next' and 'prev' buttons. Enormous thanks to Andy Flaster and Jonathan Crowther for all the technology stuff.

]]>
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/04/05/146-the-agincourt-campaign-part-iii/feed/8145 The Agincourt Campaign Part IIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/29/145-the-agincourt-campaign-part-ii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/29/145-the-agincourt-campaign-part-ii/#commentsSun, 29 Mar 2015 08:16:57 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/29/145-the-agincourt-campaign-part-ii/Read More]]>Henry probably now intended to be King of France or Duke of Normandy as a minimum. So what he planned was a war of conquest, not just the traditional chevaucee. It's likely that he planned to start with Harfleur, take it quickly and then advance to the capital of Normandy – Rouen – before winter. But Jean d'Estouteville, captain of Harfleur, had other ideas.

The Agincourt Campaign, 1415

You can let this animation run at it's own speed, or click pause and then move the show on as you wish with the 'next' and 'prev' buttons. Enormous thanks to Andy Flaster and Jonathan Crowther for all the technology stuff.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/29/145-the-agincourt-campaign-part-ii/feed/6144 The Agincourt Campaign – Part Ihttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/15/144-the-agincourt-campaign-part-i-1/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/15/144-the-agincourt-campaign-part-i-1/#commentsSun, 15 Mar 2015 10:25:45 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/15/144-the-agincourt-campaign-part-i-1/Read More]]>There is little doubt that Henry Vth always intended to fight in France – unless they completely rolled over. Which was unlikely; the French were perfectly ready to fight and on the surface at least united in the face of the English threat, and looking forward to giving them a beating. This week, Henry prepares.

Dramatis Personnae: The French

John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, 1371-1419

John the Fearless was aggressive, cunning, mercurial, deeply untrustworthy, hugely ambitious – and always surprising. Following John's murder of the Loius, Duke of Orleans, and in the context of the madness of King Charles VIth, The Burgundian faction fought with the Orleanists for control of the crown.

Charles, Duke of Orleans, 1394 – 1465

Charles was the son of the murdered Louis, and was honour-bound to avenge his father's murder – contributing to the constant instability of the French kingdom. He therefore allied himself with the powerful Bernard VII, Count of Armagnac, and together were engaged in an intermittent struggle for control until the Treat of Arras at last brought unity. In fact, Charles was destined to spent 25 years in English captivity. It meant he was to have a greater reputation for writing poetry and as a patron of the arts than as a warrior.

Jean, Duke of Bourbon, 1481 – 1434

The Duke of Alencon, 1385-1415

Jean of Bourbon was 34 at the time of Agincourt, and reputedly keen to get it on with the English, and follow at aggressive strategy to fight and throw them out of France. In fact he was to end his life in English captivity. Jean, The Duke of Alencon was similarly keen to prove superiority of French arms, and was to come closer than any of the French leaders to fulfilling these aims.

Jean le Maingre II (Boucicaut) 1366-1421, Marshal of France

Charles d'Albret, Constable of France

Bouicaut was one of the most celebrated figures in France, the epitome chivalry with it's contradictions and contrasts- writer of poetry and military adventurer. He fought all comers at the famous tournament at Inglevert at the age of 24, and won fame fighting the Ottomans in the East – often with a disasterous lack of success, such as at Nicopolis. But there's not doubt he was a glittering figure with vast military experience, and as Marshal advised the French leaders. Charles d'Albret was part of the influential Gascon family that caused the English so much trouble, and had fought under the famous Bertrand de Guescelin to recover the lands lost at Bretigny.

Louis of Guyenne, Dauphin of France, 1397-1415

And finally to the young man who became the official face of the French opposition to Henry, the young heir to the throne, Louis, Dauphin, son of Charles VIth. The man who reputedly mocked Henry by sending a gift of tennis balls. The man to whom Henry wrote as he sat in Southampton, ready to board his ship for France

Friend, give us what we are owed and by the will of the almighty avoid a deluge of human blood

The Treaty of Bretigny, 1360 and English demands

The treaty of Bretigny represented Edward III at the height of his powers. It restored to the English crown the lands of Poitou in particular that had been part of Eleanor's great lands of Aquitaine. Yet it was never ratified, and by Edward's death was essentially a dead letter. It was this treaty that formed the basis of Henry's demands. But he went further; he went back to the Conqueror to claim Normandy; and to Henry II to claim Maine, Tourraine and Anjou. The throne of France was probably always negotiable.

And of course Henry enthusiastically pushed his desire to marry Charles VIth's daughter, Catherine de Valois.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/15/144-the-agincourt-campaign-part-i-1/feed/3143 The Champion of Christhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/08/143-the-champion-of-christ/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/08/143-the-champion-of-christ/#commentsSun, 08 Mar 2015 12:14:56 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/08/143-the-champion-of-christ/Read More]]>In 1413, Henry's friend John Oldcastle very probably celebrated the arrival of his prince on the English throne – now at last, surely, the Lollards would have their chance to express themselves, be protected by the crown.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/08/143-the-champion-of-christ/feed/5142 Greatest Man – or Monster?https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/01/142-greatest-man-or-monster/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/01/142-greatest-man-or-monster/#commentsSun, 01 Mar 2015 15:46:51 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/01/142-greatest-man-or-monster/Read More]]>Henry Vth is a man who has a reasonable claim to be the greatest of English kings. But what did contemporaries think of him? Successful he was no doubt – but in his rigid piety and ruthlessness was he also a monster?

We have arrived at one of the most famous rulers of England. Who inspired one of the most famous and talented of historians, K B McFarlane to describe him, remarkably immoderately, as "the greatest man that ever ruled England". Historians ever since have been picking away at that, because historians do so hate brave and definitive statements. And so the revisionist view goes all the way to Ian Mortimer, who as a historian is also not afraid of brave and definitive statements. So Ian basically describes Henry as a Monster. A monster "undermined by his own pride and over whelmed by his own authority’; a "wanton destroyer of lives’ and proof that "a man may be a hero and yet a monster".

Ouch.

But maybe the main thing is that to contemporaries, both English and French, Henry was the model of kingship. Even to the French he looked better than their own lot.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/03/01/142-greatest-man-or-monster/feed/6141d Christopher Colombus by David McLainhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/02/08/141d-christopher-colombus-by-david-mclain/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/02/08/141d-christopher-colombus-by-david-mclain/#respondSun, 08 Feb 2015 14:35:38 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/02/08/141d-christopher-colombus-by-david-mclain/No excuses really – nothing to do with English History at all. But hey, we enjoyed David's Shakespeare episode, so here's a chance for more!

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/02/08/141d-christopher-colombus-by-david-mclain/feed/0141c The Romans in Britain Pt 2 by Richard Nortonhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/01/11/141c-the-romans-in-britain-pt-2-by-richard-norton/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/01/11/141c-the-romans-in-britain-pt-2-by-richard-norton/#respondSun, 11 Jan 2015 16:31:27 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/01/11/141c-the-romans-in-britain-pt-2-by-richard-norton/Read More]]>And here we are with the second installment of the Romans in Britain, taking us to the fall of the western Empire.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/01/11/141c-the-romans-in-britain-pt-2-by-richard-norton/feed/0141b The Romans in Britain Pt 1 by Richard Nortonhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/01/04/141b-the-romans-in-britain-pt-1-by-richard-norton/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/01/04/141b-the-romans-in-britain-pt-1-by-richard-norton/#commentsSun, 04 Jan 2015 13:19:43 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/01/04/141b-the-romans-in-britain-pt-1-by-richard-norton/Read More]]>For some reason, don't know why, my interest in English and British history starts with the Anglo Saxons. Not before. Don't ask me why – no idea. I love Ancient Greece, Rome etc etc - but no interest in the British stuff. Sorry.

Fortunately, Richard Norton does! yay! so here we are, part 1 of a 2 part overview of the Romans in Britain by Richard Norton….

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2015/01/04/141b-the-romans-in-britain-pt-1-by-richard-norton/feed/3141a An Alternative View of Heresy by David Fordhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/12/22/141a-an-alternative-view-of-heresy-by-david-ford/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/12/22/141a-an-alternative-view-of-heresy-by-david-ford/#commentsMon, 22 Dec 2014 05:00:21 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/12/22/141a-an-alternative-view-of-heresy-by-david-ford/Read More]]>This is a personal view by David Ford (though spoken by me), prompted by the episode on Heresy. David talks about some of the impacts the church had in the medieval world, why heresy arose, and some of the myths that appeared over the church's response.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/12/22/141a-an-alternative-view-of-heresy-by-david-ford/feed/17The Pilot of Miura by Isaac Meyershttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/12/14/the-pilot-of-miura-by-isaac-meyers/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/12/14/the-pilot-of-miura-by-isaac-meyers/#commentsSun, 14 Dec 2014 11:01:47 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/12/14/the-pilot-of-miura-by-isaac-meyers/Read More]]>Hello everyone, this is David here, from what is laughingly being referred to as holiday…although hopefully with the approach of Christmas really will become holiday!

I just wanted to say Hi, and say that I’m still not sure when I am going to come back but I suspect it’ll be later rather than sooner…but also to say that a few people have got in touch with me about guest episodes. So with a bit of luck there’ll be something on the airways.

This one following is from Isaac Meyers, then. Now when I was a lad, I ate the James Clavell books, I just ATE them. The best historical novels bar none, makes even the beloved Bernard look like a no hoper. And Shogun induced a period of Japanese mania as I remember, and through that I learned that the base story was true, about some English bloke tipping up on the shores of Japan and making a go if it all.

So when Isaac contacted me and suggested a guest episode, I was more than delighted. So, here it is, and there’ll be more soon!

This is Tokugawa Ieyasu, the first shogun of the Tokugawa family and the man who saved Adams from the Spanish

A monument on the former site of Adams' home in what is now the Nihonbashi district of Tokyo

A letter from Adams to the representatives of the English EIC, date unknown.

The suit of armor given to James I by Tokugawa Hidetada, the second shogun of the Tokugawa shogunate

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/12/14/the-pilot-of-miura-by-isaac-meyers/feed/2141 De Heretico Comburendohttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/11/09/141-de-heretico-comburendo/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/11/09/141-de-heretico-comburendo/#commentsSun, 09 Nov 2014 18:50:01 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/11/09/141-de-heretico-comburendo/Read More]]>With John Wycliffe and the Lollards in the 14th century, heresy finally came to England. Up to this point, rural England had been notable for avoiding the religious turmoils that sprung up from time to time through the continent.

William Sawtry, 1401

William Sawtry was very probably the first person in England executed for heresy by being burned., He was not to be the last.

William Sawtry was a parish chaplain in Norfolk. He was a vigorous preacher, spreading an unusual message; he declared that he would rather venerate a living monarch, or the bodies of the saints, or a confessed and contrite man, than any crucifix; that priests should preach or teach rather than say canonical services; and that money used for pilgrimages would be better spent on the poor. Most significantly, he also held that real bread remained on the altar after the words of consecration – not the body of Christ.

Initially, Sawtry was taken in 1399 to the presence of Bishop Henry Dispencer, the Bishop of Norwich who had dealt so firmly with the Peasants revolt. He started off defiantly, but a few weeks later he was persuaded to abandon these beliefs, and he abjured them publicly at Lynn, swearing never again to preach or hold them.

Sawtry then moved to London, and despite his promises not to preach his heretical views any more, that is exactly what he did. So in 1401, he was hauled before a full convocation of the church at St Pauls in front of no lesser person than Archbishop Arundel. What followed was typical; Arundel questioned him closely and aggressively, trying to trick Sawtry into admitting his heresy. Sawtry responded with clever evasions and replies that could be interpreted several ways. For several hours Sawtry avoided answers that could incriminate him, but Arundel was relentless pushing him harder and harder for hour after hour.

Eventually, Sawtry could avoid him no longer; following ther consecration, he said the bread at the altar, quote ‘remained true bread, and the same bread as before’.

Arundel had won – he had his man. William Sawtry was convicted as a heretic. He made no plea for mercy. Instead he loudly prophesied imminent ruin for clergy, king, and kingdom. On 26 February he was ceremonially stripped of his priestly orders before a large congregation at St Paul's, to whom the archbishop expounded the condemned man's offences in English. He was then handed over as a layman to the secular powers. His execution was authorized by direct royal command, because there was no formal law, and and soon afterwards burned at Smithfield, quote

‘bound, standing upright, to a post set in a barrel with blazing wood all around, and thus reduced to ashes’

The Lollards had their first martyr. Sawtry was reviled by orthodox chroniclers but honoured by his underground co-religionists: one such, William Emayn of Bristol, in 1429 called Sawtre ‘a holy man … worshipped in heaven’, and he later figured prominently in Foxe's protestant book of martyrs.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/11/09/141-de-heretico-comburendo/feed/3140 Fathers and Sonshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/11/02/140-fathers-and-sons/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/11/02/140-fathers-and-sons/#commentsSun, 02 Nov 2014 14:10:33 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/11/02/140-fathers-and-sons/Read More]]>In his final years, Henry faced a new challenge – from his ambitious son Henry. Ill and tired, For a while he loses control to the young bucks, the new generation, the men of his son.

Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester

Chief of Prince Hal's men was Henry Beaufort. the second of four illegitimate children of John of Gauntand Katherine Swynford. He seems to have been marked out for a clerical career from the start, going to Peterhouse, Cambridge and Queen's College, Oxford. Advancements and positions came quickly, and in 1397 he was chancellor of Oxford University, and by 1398 Bishop of Lincoln. A liaison with Alice Fitzalan, Archbishop Arundel's niece. In the autumn of 1402 he was appointed to the king's council, and in 1403, he was appointed chancellor of England for two years. By 1404 he had progressed to the richest see in Europe – Winchester.

When in January 1410, Henry, prince of Wales, displaced Arundel as head of the council, Bishop Beaufort and his brother Thomas headed the administration. Thomas became chancellor while Bishop Henry opened parliament. For the two years of the prince's administration, until November 1411, Beaufort followed a policy of fiscal solvency and friendship with Burgundy.

In March 1410 his elder brother John died, leaving his widow, Margaret, with three young children. Thomas of Lancaster the king's second son then managed to marry the widow, therefore enjoying the lands that formed the greater part of the young Beauforts' inheritance. Bishop Henry tried to impede the marriage, and refused to surrender to Thomas his brother's treasure for a while but in the end was forced to give way.

In November 1411 Henry IVth asserted himself one last time, and Beaufort was out on his ear. But after his death in 1413, Beauforth was back, made Chancellor and he was back in power. Beaufort would remain as the leading political figure unmtil his death in 1447, the most staunch and relentless supporter of the Lancastrian dynasty.

Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick (1382-1439)

The Beauchamp family was almost destroyed by Richard II in 1397–9 and saved only by the accession of Henry IV. His father had died in April 1401, leaving his lands concentrated principally in the west midland counties of Warwickshire and Worcestershire. Over the years, he rebuilt the fortunes of the family, participating in the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, after which he was made a knight of the Garter. From 1408 to 1410 he travelled abroad, visiting Rome and the Holy Land and returning via eastern Europe and was a renowned jouster. In May 1410 he was named a royal councillor but in November 1411 he suffered the same fate as Beaufort when Henry IVth re=-asserted himself.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/11/02/140-fathers-and-sons/feed/5139 The Fall of Glyn Dwrhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/19/139-the-fall-of-glyn-dwr/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/19/139-the-fall-of-glyn-dwr/#respondSun, 19 Oct 2014 09:01:09 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/19/139-the-fall-of-glyn-dwr/Read More]]>The younger Henry enters our story full time as he leads to fight to Glyn Dwr. And for the alternative Prince of Wales after the failure of the French invasion the light went out of his rebellion. It wasn't all over yet – Harlech and Abersytwyth still stood – but without external help things looked pretty desperate.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/19/139-the-fall-of-glyn-dwr/feed/0138 Glyn Dwr and the Showdownhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/12/138-glyn-dwr-and-the-showdown/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/12/138-glyn-dwr-and-the-showdown/#respondSun, 12 Oct 2014 08:59:20 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/12/138-glyn-dwr-and-the-showdown/Read More]]>In 1405, yet more rebellion in England, this time from the north led by an Archbishop; and the crowning glory of Glyn Dwr's diplomacy led to the arrival of the French on the shores to wipe the English out in Wales

The Execution of an Archbishop

In 1405 Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland rose in rebellion, the thought of his son in his mind. He was joined by the Earl of Nottingham and Norfolk – Thomas Mowbray, son of the exiled one – and Archbishop Richard Scrope. John of Lancaster, son of the king, and Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland were up to the challenge.

By the time Henry arived in the north, the rebellion was over. But his attitudes had hardened – there had to be an example to stop the constant rolling programme of rebellion. And to universal horror on 5th June 1405, the King had the Archbishop executed as a traitor.

The end of the rebellion?

From 1406 to 1409, Glyn Dwr was to see the glory of his revolt fade. But for the moment, he still held the great castles of Aberystwyth and Harlech stood as symbols of Welsh defiance. While they were there., there was life in the rebellion yet.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/12/138-glyn-dwr-and-the-showdown/feed/0137 The Battle of Shrewsburyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/05/137-the-battle-of-shrewsbury/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/05/137-the-battle-of-shrewsbury/#commentsSun, 05 Oct 2014 09:30:58 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/05/137-the-battle-of-shrewsbury/Read More]]>The battle of Shrewsbury of 1403 is one of those battles that deserves to be more remembered than it is – along with Lincoln in 1217 for example. The issue at Shrewsbury was who would rule England – Henry IVth or the Mortimers and Percies.

A fantastic place to go, for any battle in England, the Battlefield Trust. Hop along and have a look.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/10/05/137-the-battle-of-shrewsbury/feed/2136 Glyn Dwr Ascendanthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/09/14/136-glyn-dwr-ascendant/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/09/14/136-glyn-dwr-ascendant/#respondSun, 14 Sep 2014 16:34:41 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/09/14/136-glyn-dwr-ascendant/Read More]]>In 1402 and 1403 Glyn Dwr's power and influence grew and he scored some dramatic successes that made the world look up and take notice. As Glyn Dwr looked for foreign allies, Henry was forced to look north, and look closely at the loyalty of those around this.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/09/14/136-glyn-dwr-ascendant/feed/0135 Glyn Dwr Risinghttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/30/135-glyn-dwr-rising/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/30/135-glyn-dwr-rising/#commentsSat, 30 Aug 2014 09:11:27 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/30/135-glyn-dwr-rising/Read More]]>As he looked around after dust of the Epiphany Rising had settled, Henry began to realise that he had problems that would make his life difficult; a mega fall in royal revenue, a restricted group of magnates to call on. Plus, things were stirring in the West…

The Welsh Marches, 1400

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/30/135-glyn-dwr-rising/feed/2134 Golden Child Made Kinghttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/24/134-the-golden-child-made-king/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/24/134-the-golden-child-made-king/#commentsSun, 24 Aug 2014 08:29:07 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/24/134-the-golden-child-made-king/Read More]]>The reputation of Henry IVth has changed through history – where he's remembered at all! So we look at that – we are left with those that think Henry was inadequate, and those that he did the best job possible in the circumstances. And then we deal with the first challenge of Henry's reign – the Epiphany Rising.

Images of Henry IVth

The famous image of Henry is this one. It hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London, and to all intents and purposes it looks as though we are now into the period of authentic likeness, which started with Richard II; prior to Richard all the images we have of kings are 'identikit', stylised images of how a king should look. BUT it turns out that this image is also fake. It was created as part of a series in late Tudor times – 1590-1610 ish. Now by this time, the concept of true likeness was still important; so they made great efforts to find some true likeness they could copy. However in the case of Henry IVth we might suspect that they didn't manage it; but what they seem to have done is make sure at least that his dress is as authentic as possible – in this case it looks very similar, apparently, to contemporary images of Charles VIth of France.

So we should probably be relying more on this image, which his tomb at Canterbury Cathedral. It is pretty much contemporary – 1420-30, by a Derbyshire firm, created in Alabaster.

Having said that, I'm not sure he looks as good – a bit like a small town bank manager, could be in Dad's Army or such like. His figure on the tomb has the interlinked S's of the house of Lancaster – ancestry was important to them.

As it happens, the tomb was opened in 1832. Apparently Henry's features were very well preserved including a deep, and full beard, of a deep Russet colour.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/24/134-the-golden-child-made-king/feed/9133 The History of Europe Part VIIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/17/133-the-history-of-europe-part-vii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/17/133-the-history-of-europe-part-vii/#respondSun, 17 Aug 2014 08:49:40 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/17/133-the-history-of-europe-part-vii/Read More]]>This week we finish off our survey of Europe, bringing us up to date with Byzantium, and the threat from the East. But we’ll also bring you up to date with Scandinanvia, Russia and France.

The Rise of the Ottoman Empire

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/17/133-the-history-of-europe-part-vii/feed/0132 The History of Europe Part VIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/10/132-the-history-of-europe-part-v/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/10/132-the-history-of-europe-part-v/#commentsSun, 10 Aug 2014 09:11:48 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/10/132-the-history-of-europe-part-v/Read More]]>The growth of Aragon and its mediterranean empire, consolidation and political change in Northern Italy, fragmentation in Germany; Jan Hus, heresy and the Council of Constance.

Northern Italy in the 15th Century

Germany, 15th Century

Switzerland

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/08/10/132-the-history-of-europe-part-v/feed/3131 The History of Europe Part V: Economic change and technologyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/07/27/131-the-history-of-europe-part-v-economic-change-and-technology/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/07/27/131-the-history-of-europe-part-v-economic-change-and-technology/#commentsSun, 27 Jul 2014 08:54:31 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/07/27/131-the-history-of-europe-part-v-economic-change-and-technology/Read More]]>Ths episode is the first of 3 to bring us up to date with the history of Europe to the time of Henry IVth. This week it's all about the Economic development of Europe, and about some of the technological change that impacts on it

The traditional picture of Bolingbroke is a much later creation, not contemporary. But here's Bolingbroke claiming the throne.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/07/06/130-usurpation/feed/5129 Dominionhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/29/129-dominion/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/29/129-dominion/#commentsSun, 29 Jun 2014 09:49:28 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/29/129-dominion/Read More]]>At last in 1397 Richard would have felt that he had put his past humiliation from the Appellants behind him. But he was no happier or secure. He gathered his private army of Cheshire Archers around him and looked out at the world outside the court with mistrustful eyes.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/29/129-dominion/feed/1128 The Narcisisthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/22/128-the-narcisist/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/22/128-the-narcisist/#commentsSun, 22 Jun 2014 09:46:59 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/22/128-the-narcisist/Read More]]>In 1397, Richard finally saw the chance to try to get his revenge on the Appellants – Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick. So the parliament of September 1397 was momentus.

In 1397 , Richard finally moved on the men who had humiliated him back in 1388. After 9 years of reasoonably reasonable rule this was odd. The theory is thast Richard was a narcisist – depply egocentric, convinced of his own perfection and importance – yet deeply insecure. And so his reactions were extreme. It also became clear that he had never forgotten, nor forgiven the events of 1388.

In 1397 he moved. Two of the Appelannts – Bolingbroke and Mowbray he subborned to his side. The Senior Appellants were his target. Gloucester was arrested and taken to Calais into the care of Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham. Warwick was invited to supper and arrested afterwards. Richard FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel, was talked out of his castle by his brother, Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury.

At the Parliament of 1397, Thomas Arundel was banished. Gloucester was secretly killed in Calais – the blood royal could not be put on trial. Warwick was put on trial, weeped and wailed and was banished. Richard Of Arundel was a fighter. The transcript of his trial below, with John of Gaunt as the Accuser and John Bussy as the Speaker of hte House, is largely the words of contemporary chroniclers, with a bit of tweaking here and there.

Arundel

For what reasons am I standing here accused? I have been pardoned twice by the king

Gaunt

Those pardons have been revoked, traitor!

Arundel

Truly, you lie. I was never traitor

Gaunt

Then why did you seek a pardon?

Arundel

To silence the tongues of my enemies, of whom you are one. And to be sure, when it comes to treason, you are in greater need of a pardon than I am

Richard

Answer the appeal!

Arundel

I see it clearly now.

All you who accuse me of treason, you are all liars! Never was I traitor!

I still claim the full benefit of my pardon, which you, within these last six years, when you were of full age and free to act as you wished, granted to me of your own volition.

Richard

I granted it provided it were not to my prejudice

Gaunt

Therefore the grant is worthless

Arundel

In truth, I was as ignorant about that pardon as you were – and you were abroad at the time – until it was willingly granted to me by the king.

Bussy

That pardon has already been revoked by the king, the lords and us – the faithful commons.

At this point Arundel looked around at the Commons assembled in the hall. He might well have noticed that there were very few familiar faces; the Composition of the commons this time around was of almost entirely new men

Arundel

Where are those faithful commons?

You are not here to act faithfully. You are here to shed my blood. If the faithful commons were here they would without doubt be on my side, trying to help mefrom falling into your clutches. They, I know, are grieving greatly for me while you, I know, have always been false.

Bussy

Look, lord king, how this traitor is trying to stir up dissent between us and the commons who stayed at home!

Arundel

Liars, all of you! I am no traitor!

Bolingbroke

Did you not say to me at Huntingdon, when we first gathered in revolt, that before doing anything else it would be better to seize the king?

Arundel

You henry, Earl of Derby, you lie in your teeth. I never said anything to you or to anyone else about my lord king, except what was to his welfare and honour.

Richard

Did you not say to me at the time of your parliament, in the bath behind the White Hall, that Simon Burley was worthy of death? And I replied that I neither knew nor could discover any reason for his death. And even the Queen, my wife, and I interceded tirelessly on his behalf, yet you and your accomplices, ignoring our pleas, traitorously put him to death.

Richard

Pass judgement on him

Gaunt

Lord Arundel, you are found a foul traitor. You will be drawn to the gallows at Tyburn, here to be hanged from the neck, cut down before dead, beheaded and quartered.

Richard

In consideration of your rank, though you scarce deserve it, Lord Arundel, the sentence is commuted to beheading only.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/22/128-the-narcisist/feed/4127a Britain, Jamaica and the 70s by Roifield Brownhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/15/127a-britain-jamaica-and-the-70s-by-roifield-brown/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/15/127a-britain-jamaica-and-the-70s-by-roifield-brown/#commentsSun, 15 Jun 2014 10:13:01 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/15/127a-britain-jamaica-and-the-70s-by-roifield-brown/Read More]]>A bit of a change of pace for our guest episode this week – here’s Roifield Brown, author of the ‘How Jamaica conquered the world’ podcast, with an episode about Britain in the 70s and the impact Jamaica had on us all. The music is great, by the way!

You can find out more about Roifield’s podcast by going to his website here

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/15/127a-britain-jamaica-and-the-70s-by-roifield-brown/feed/1127 The Model of Chivalryhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/08/127-the-model-of-chivalry/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/08/127-the-model-of-chivalry/#commentsSun, 08 Jun 2014 15:21:04 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/08/127-the-model-of-chivalry/Read More]]>Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby, son of the most powerful magnate in England, was a golden child blessed with every advantage. While Richard tried to get his royal feet under the throne, Bolingbroke left the wife to bring up the children and headed out to fulfil the image of the perfect medieval knight

In a fever of excitement, Henry and many famous companions – Thomas Mowbray among them – travelled to Calais and thence to St Inglevert. There 3 French knights – Boucicaut, Jean de Saimpy, and Reginald de Roye held the field against all comers. After they fought they ate, drank, danced and celebrated. For the original text, and a slightly nerdy analysis of he action, you can follow this link to Tales from Froissart.

The Baltic Crusades

The Baltic Crusades are of course far less well known than those of the Holy Land, but by the 14th century they were the only remaining crusades where Christian actually fought non-Christian. They lacked the glamour in many ways – being cold and wet was one notable feature. But Henry Bolingbroke went twice, though the second time, to his horror he found every one was living in peace. And so he travelled to the Holy Land as a pilgrim – via Preague, Vienna and Venice

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/08/127-the-model-of-chivalry/feed/6126 An Uneasy Calmhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/01/126-an-uneasy-calm/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/01/126-an-uneasy-calm/#commentsSun, 01 Jun 2014 11:22:36 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/01/126-an-uneasy-calm/Read More]]>Between the Appellants crisis of 1388 and 1397, Richard ruled with increasingly confidence. He was hardly the most impressive English king but he appeared to have cast off the wildness of his early days, and accepted the need to rule together with his leading magnates, and distribute patronage carefully. This week, we look at those years.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/06/01/126-an-uneasy-calm/feed/1125 Accusatiohttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/05/25/125-accusatio/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/05/25/125-accusatio/#commentsSun, 25 May 2014 09:53:57 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/05/25/125-accusatio/Read More]]>By 1387, it was becoming clear that the Wonderful Parliament of 1385 had not solved the problem. Pressure had been building, and Gloucester, Warwick and Arundel were far from satisfied – and felt far from safe. The showdown came at the Merciless Parliament of 1388.

Richard tried to strike first – ordering Percy, the Earl of Northumberland, to arrest Arundel. He failed. At Waltham Cross, Gloucester, Warwick and Arundel, gathered their men and accused (or Appealed – hence Appelants) 5 close councillors of the king as traitors and usurpers of Royal power. These were:

Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland and Earl of Oxford

Michael de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk

Judge Robert Tresilian

Alexander Neville, Archbishop of York

Nicholas Brembre, Merchant

Most (except Brembre) ran. But de Vere ran for Chester – not for safety, but to raise an army of Cheshire bowmen to rescue the king. He came south with 3-4,000 men – but facing desertions all the way, when he met the forces of Henry Bolingbroke at Radcot Bridge his forces melted away. Oxford escaped to Bruges. Richard was forced to call parliamenty to listen to the accusations against his friends.

The political confrontation – the Merciless Parliament

The Apellants were now 5:

Duke of Gloucester: Thomas of Woodstock, son of Edward III

Earl of Warwick: Thomas Beauchamp

Earl of Arundel: Richard Fitzalan

Henry Bolingbroke: Earl of Derby son of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster

Thomas Mowbray: Earl of Nottingham

They entered the parliament arms linked, and over the next few months brutally followed through on their threats. Brembre, though clearly innocent, was beheaded; Treslian was found spying on proceedings and despite his terrified pleas was also beheaded. And despite Richard's desperate pleas and those of his wife, Anne, his mentor Simon Burley also went to his death.

By the end of the parliament, it looked as comprehensive and vindictive a victory as any in the history of England so far. But Richard would not forget.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/05/25/125-accusatio/feed/6124 The Character of a Kinghttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/05/11/124-the-character-of-a-king/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/05/11/124-the-character-of-a-king/#commentsSun, 11 May 2014 09:11:47 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/05/11/124-the-character-of-a-king/Read More]]>From the end of the Peasant's Revolt in 1381, England continues to be managed by the Council, but the young Richard began to have more and more influence. And despite his youth and lack of sole control, what he does manages to raise concern rather than to re-assure. As the war with France goes from bad to worse, by the time 1387 comes around there are more than a few murmurs of discontent around.

The war with France went poorly during Richard's reign. The way of Spain, invasions into Portugal, Navarre and Castile all proved futile. Meanwhile the French and Castillians dominated the narrow seas and England stood at constant threat of invasion.

Trouble with Gaunt

Richard did not appreciate the support that John of Gaunt gave him. He resented the fact that gaunt's authority and reputation was so important to him, and Gaunt himself was arrogant and rude – but he was also loyal. On campaign in Scotland in 1385, none the less, Richard accused Gaunt of self interest and anting the royal campaign to fail. When the Mad Monk, a Carmelite Friar, accused John of plotting to kill the king he was believed – John was forced to flee the King's paranoia, and return wearing his armour t lecture and harangue the young king. Eventually in 1386, Gauint was pleased to leave to pursue his wife's claim to the throne of Castile. Richard would have been every bit as pleased. But in fact, it left him weaker.

The Wonderful Parliament, 1386

Fed up Gloucester and his chum, Richard FitzAlan the Earl of Arundel, took the normal approach of attacking the king's council as a proxy for attacking the king. Michael de la Pole was impeached, using this wonderful new method Peter de la Mare had given the people in the Good Parliament of 1377. De La Pole was removed, and a Continual Council put in place manage Richard's affairs for a year. Richard was livid – but helpless to resist.

Preparing to fight back.

Through the year, Richard showed he could be patient – he played the game, toured the midlands and outwardly seemed to be obeying the rules. Secretly, though he got his justices together, and got them to rule that the Wonderful parliament had acted illegally, against the right so of the Crown, than those who had done it were traitors. Inevitably, the news got out about Richard's query – and Gloucester knew trouble was heading his way. In 1387, England found out how Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick would react.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/05/11/124-the-character-of-a-king/feed/1123 Wycliffe and the Lollardshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/27/123-wycliffe-and-the-lollards/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/27/123-wycliffe-and-the-lollards/#commentsSun, 27 Apr 2014 08:50:44 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/27/123-wycliffe-and-the-lollards/Read More]]>With the arrival of the 1380s, a reaction was in train in Oxford. The new Chancellor, William Barton was an old friend of Wycliffe – but friend he was no longer. Wycliffe spent the last few years of his life in exile in Lutterworth, and by 1384 he was dead.

Lollardy

The tradition source of the word Lollard is from the Dutch to mumble. Wherever it came from it probably wasn't complimentary. But despite Wycliff's lack of interest in starting a new religion, a reformed religion did appear. It's profile basically followed the success of local preachers. The map below from Wikipedia shows how it spread.

By and large before 1400 supression was slightly piecemeal. But Archbishop Courtenay and Oxford Chancellor Barton at least made sure Academic debate was expelled from Oxford. In the new century, Archbishop Arundel was to be more thorough.

The Wycliffe Bible

Was translated from the Latin Vulgate version, rather than the original hebrew; some of its wording, especially the Early Version is clumsy, since it translates word for word. It has therefore had less attention than Tyndale's Bible, but its popularity was enormous, and over 250 copies remain to this day.

The use of English

The determination to use an English version of the bible reflected the resurgence of English. It was nw the only language everyone had in common, and French was learned as a second language by the children of the nobility. And so Langland, Gower, Chaucer – all wrote in English becuase they would that way attract the greatest audience.

The same applies to the poet of the Pearl – which can be found in the original and translation here.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/27/123-wycliffe-and-the-lollards/feed/1122 John Wycliffe – and a University Educationhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/20/122-john-wycliffe-and-a-university-education/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/20/122-john-wycliffe-and-a-university-education/#commentsSun, 20 Apr 2014 09:47:03 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/20/122-john-wycliffe-and-a-university-education/Read More]]>Wycliffe's writings were to prove controversial and proved an interesting early echo of the Reformation. They heavily influenced the view of Jan Hus and the movement in Bohemia. And his ability to develop and present those views owed a lot to Oxford University, and its desire to protect intellectual debate and investigation.

The University of Oxford

By the 14th Century, Oxford had become rather like a Guild – the Chancellor at the top; the Doctors and Masters of Arts as it's Masters; the Bachelors of Arts as it's Journey men, and undergraduates as Apprentices. Into this world Wycliffe walked at the age of 12 or 14 – for the 7 years that made up the Bachelor of Arts 'Degree'. Degree referred to the stages one should take to become a Doctor – a series of stages – Bachelor, Master, Doctor.

Oxford was a chaotic place. Every student found themselves their own Regent Masters to teach them. They found their own lodgings, or maybe joined on eof the new Academic Halls. There were serious troubles with eh locals, such as the St Scholastica Day riots which led to open warfare on the streets.

John Wycliffe and his career

Wycliffe was born around 1330 in Yorkshire, to a reasonably up and coming family. He would have been taken to Oxford by a bringer. He became a Bachelor, Master, and then finally in 1372/3, a Doctor of Theology. For a while in the 1370's he had friends. John of Gaunt because of where he came from, and his helpfully anticlerical writings. The Black Prince and his wife Joan, because of his helpfully anticlerical writings. he acquired a living in Lutterworth, Leicestershire. But as he became more controversial, that support died away in the face of persecution from the church. By the 1380's he retired to Lutterworth, and died in 1384.

Why was he controversial?

Wycliffe considered himself a good Christian. He considered that his writings were based on the opinions and teachings of the fathers. But of course the Church were unlikely to enjoy his conclusions about their wordly wealth and privilege. Wycliffe's main conclusions were:

The Church had forfeited its rights to its wealth and power, through its corruption. The Crown should take them back

There is no support in the scriptures for all these bishops, and the bloated infrastructure on the medieval church. It should all go.

The Pope should model himself on Christ and live according to his model if he wanted to have the moral authority.

The principle of transubstantiation as taught by the church was deeply hooky.

The Bible is the only reliable reference point for Christians, since it’s not an easy world, and before he knew it he was a religious radical. There’s no evidence whatsoever that he ever tried to create a movement behind his argument – he was just telling the truth as he saw it, inconvenient or not.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/20/122-john-wycliffe-and-a-university-education/feed/6121 Counter Revolutionhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/13/121-counter-revolutionthfield-it-was/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/13/121-counter-revolutionthfield-it-was/#commentsSun, 13 Apr 2014 10:02:55 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/13/121-counter-revolutionthfield-it-was/Read More]]>After Richard had broken the revolt in London at Smithfield it was time to tackle the chaos outside London. The Counter Revolution took something between 1,500-7,000 judicial executions, and did nothing to solve the breaches in a divided society. Also this week, a look at the state of the nation of the medieval English church, as we approach the story of John Wyclif and the Lollards.

By July 1381, the Peasants' Revolt was over. Richard proved not to be a keen captain of the peasants as he'd promised at Smithfield, taking a hard line on the peasants; aspirations:

‘You wretches, detestable on land and sea; you who seek equality with lords are unworthy to live. Give this message to your colleagues: rustics you were, rustics you are still. You will remain in bondage, not as before, but incomparably harsher. For as long as you live we will strive to suppress you, and your misery will be an example in the eyes of prosterity. However, we will spare your lives if you remain faithful and loyal. Choose now which course you want to follow’

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/04/13/121-counter-revolutionthfield-it-was/feed/2120 … Who was then the Gentleman?https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/30/120-who-was-then-the-gentleman/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/30/120-who-was-then-the-gentleman/#commentsSun, 30 Mar 2014 09:56:40 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/30/120-who-was-then-the-gentleman/Read More]]>In June 1381 the revolt came to London. Before long, London was in flames, and the qualities of the young king Richard, and his advisers, were tested to the limit as they were made prisoners in their own castle.

The map shows London in 1300. in 1381, the topography would have been very similar, though the population had fallen from something like 100,000 to 40,000.

13th June 1381: The rebels gain access to the City and go on the rampage

The Mayor was an experienced, resolute Merchant called William Walworth. But even he realised that his city militia sympathised with the rebels more than with him. So the gates were opened. The rebels swarmed into the city, ransacked Gaunt’s place on Strand and started to take revenge. That day, 18 men were beheaded in Cheapside. The mob ended up at the Tower of London where Richard and his council sat in earnest debate. Mayor Walworth wanted to fight, but Archbishop Sudbury and Treasurer Hales persuaded Richard to seem to give in to the Rebels’ demands

Mile End and Smithfield

Richard met with the rebel leaders at Mile End. He agreed to their demands – freedom for all, and a top limit rent of 4d. Everyone was happy – until he agreed that the rebels could root out traitors in his name. So the rebels were admitted to the Tower, found the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sudbury, and the Treasurer Hales – beheaded both of them and stuck their heads on poles.

So Richard turned to Walworth, and his more aggressive plan. They invited Tyler and the rebels to Smithfiield – a wide open space, but with pinchpoints where the king’s smaller forces could minimise their disadvantage over the more numerous but lightly armed rebels.

Tyler made his demands to Richard; but Mayor Walworth was having none of it ran him through with a sword, and hurried off to find his forces. The rebels were confused – they’d seen their leader fall but didn’t know what had happened. But they prepared to fight.

Famously at that point the young Richard came forward and said

‘Sirs, what more do you want? You have no other captain but me. I am your king, behave peaceably’

Leaderless, and used to thinking that the King was their friend, the rebels followed Richard. When Walworth returned with his armed men and Tyler’s head on a pole, they realised they had lost this fight; and allowed Richard to persuade them to return to their homes.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/30/120-who-was-then-the-gentleman/feed/7119 When Adam delved and Eve Span…https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/23/119-when-adam-delved-and-eve-span/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/23/119-when-adam-delved-and-eve-span/#commentsSun, 23 Mar 2014 08:08:06 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/23/119-when-adam-delved-and-eve-span/Read More]]>On a hill outside Blackheath, just to the south of London, a hedge priest called John Ball is preaching to a massive crowd of peasants. When Adam delved and Eve span, he asked, who was then the Gentleman? What a great question. So why are there thousands of peasants sitting on a hill outside London?

The Great Revolt, 1381

The Peasants Revolt, or Great Revolt, probably had many causes, large and small; but two stand out. The first go back to the Black Death, and impact that had on England's social fabric – a dearth of unskilled labour that gave much greater economic power to the peasants. And yet in many areas the social elite, including Edward III, used their poer to repress and block that changes as much as they could. The Peasants Revolt was at least partly a symptom of those social and economic changes. The other was simple – an unfair and over exacting Poll Tax, 3 groats per person, with no allowance made for the poor.

In May 1381, the whole thing started with the refusal of the villagers of Fobbing to accept the Poll Tax. From there it spread through Essex and Kent, until two leaders emerged – Wat Tyler and John Ball. John Ball was a social and religious revolutionary. Like many social and religious revolutionaries, it's unlikely his tory is going to have a good ending. But he popularised an immortal couplet:

When Adam delved and Eve span

Who was then the gentleman?

By 'eck, that packs a punch. And in 1381 on a hill at Blackheath, it roused a crowd of peasants 10,000 or more strong as they waited for the king, 14 year old Richard II, to meet them.

Blackheath, 13th June 1381

The rebels had a code – they were the true commons, not those who called themselves the commons in Parliament. And Richard, the king, would save them from servitude.

Richard came to meet the rebels. He had no choice – all the military strength of the nation was all over the place – John of Gaunt in Scotland, Thomas of Woodstock in France, Edmund of Langley at Plymouth. But the rebels demands were hideous – Archbishop Sudbury, Treasurer Robert Hales, John of Gaunt – they were traitors and must be executed, before all the English peasants were freed.

The showdown at London Bridge

Richard couldn't accept – and turned his barge around and returned to the Tower. The rebels were enraged – and swept into Southwark, sacked the place, then marched onto London Bridge to get access to London. The Mayor of London, William Walworth, and his militia was all that stood in the way.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/23/119-when-adam-delved-and-eve-span/feed/5118 Introducing Richard IIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/16/118-introducing-richard-ii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/16/118-introducing-richard-ii/#commentsSun, 16 Mar 2014 09:30:31 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/03/16/118-introducing-richard-ii/Read More]]>Richard arrived with the expectation of a nation on his shoulders – the son of the illustrious hero Edward the Black Prince. So what was Richard like, and how has history treated him?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/23/117a-the-poet-and-the-mistress-by-carrie-palmer/feed/1117 The Medieval Yearhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/16/117-the-medieval-year/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/16/117-the-medieval-year/#commentsSun, 16 Feb 2014 14:51:42 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/16/117-the-medieval-year/Read More]]>The rhythm of the year would have been far more important to most medieval people that the goings on at Westminster and the court of the king. The stream of Christian festivals, the odd old survival from days pagan, the demands of the natural world – these were the things that really mattered.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/16/117-the-medieval-year/feed/4116 The Good Parliament and a Bad Deathhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/09/116-the-good-parliament-and-a-bad-death/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/09/116-the-good-parliament-and-a-bad-death/#commentsSun, 09 Feb 2014 13:40:21 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/09/116-the-good-parliament-and-a-bad-death/Read More]]>There were now unusual expecations for the parliament of 1376. But in fact a revolt from the Commons was brewing, dismayed by the failures of the war. The Good Parliament set a number of precedents but John of Gaunt did not allow it to stand for long. And by June 1377 both the King and his son the Black Prince were dead.

The Palace of Westminster

The Palace of Westminister was a proper palace, not, like today, a custom built government building designed for the needs of parliament.

You can find a very nice animation of how the Palace of Westminister grew over the ages by following this link to the Armchair Travel Company.

You can still see what the Great Hall looks like today…

Thhe Painted Chamber and the Lesser hall (or White Hall) have now gone, but here's what the Painted Chamber looked like in 1799.

And finally for a chronicler's text about the events you can go to the Luminarum Encyclopedie Project, where you can also find loads of other great stuff.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/09/116-the-good-parliament-and-a-bad-death/feed/4115 The Rotten Applehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/02/115-the-rotten-apple/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/02/115-the-rotten-apple/#commentsSun, 02 Feb 2014 22:23:10 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/02/115-the-rotten-apple/Read More]]>From 1371 to 1375 the army went from bad to worse. An English fleet was destroyed at La Rochelle and Poitou and the Saintonge fell to the French. The great counter attack by Gaunt in 1373 was a disaster. And in 1374 the end of English rule in Gascony looked on the cards. The truce of Bruges in 1375 saved the English position – but it all looked very temporary. And back at home, Alice Perrers tightened her grip.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/02/02/115-the-rotten-apple/feed/5114 The Worm in the Applehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/19/114-the-worm-in-the-apple/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/19/114-the-worm-in-the-apple/#commentsSun, 19 Jan 2014 09:44:19 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/19/114-the-worm-in-the-apple/Read More]]>On the face of it, the 1360's were a continuation and celebration of the great victories of the 40's and 50's. In 1364, Charles of Blois was defeated and killed at Auray. In 1364 John II died, to be replaced by Charles Vth, and in 1367 the Black Prince won a brilliant victory at Najera. But in fact the English apple had the worm of decay in its centre.

The Death of King John

In 1364, John died in London – a bad thing for England. Now Edward no longer had the French king in his control, and a French king with a personal commitment to abide by the rules as defined in the Treaty of Bretigny. He was replaced by the Dauphin – now called Charles Vth, and to prove of a much cannier opponent than his father.

Victory in Brittany, 1364

At the Battle of Auray in 1364, Charles of Blois was killed, and Bertrand du Guesclin captured. Charles Vth now had no choice but to accept John de Montfort as the Duke of Brittany. On the face of it, this is great news. But in fact it meant that John was now much more equivocal in his support for the English; and the great men of Charles's court never really accepted Montfort. It was not the end of Brittany's agonies.

The Disastrous victory – Najera, 1367

The Najera campaign seemed to the Black Prince to be a simple matter of continuing the glories of Crecy and Poitiers. In the Spanish kingdom of Castile, the English 'ally' Pedro the Cruel was thrown out by Henry of Trastamara, supported by the French. Together with the Gascon lords, the Black Prince led an army into Castile to put Pedro back on the thrown. Pedro promised to pay, plus there'd be all those ransoms.

Campaign was initially a complete success. The French leader, Bertrand du Guesclin, was unable to persuade henry Trastamara to offer battle near the town of Najera; for his part Trastamara felt he needed to show that he was a worthy king. The battle was a tour de force by the Black Prince. Before dawn, he led his troops on a flanking movement which creating chaos in the French-Spanish ranks.

But the aftermaths was a disaster. Pedro could not pay. Ransoms were far and few between. Returning to Aquitaine, the Black Prince now faced a bunch of unhappy Gascon lord demanding compensation, and soon he would realise he'd backed a loser, as Trastamara kicked Pedro out. Worst of all, the Black Prince picked up dysentery – and from here on was to be a shadow of his former self.

Resumption of the war and the sack of Limoges, 1370.

Charles Vth of France engineered the resumption of war with the Armagnac and Albret Gascon familes. They appealed to Charles as overlord to resolve a tax dispute with the Black Prince. By accepting the challenge, Charles Vth signalled the end of the treaty of Bretigny.

In 1369, Edward resumed his title as King of France. But the war went badly. No more would Charles and Guseclin fight on English terms. In the east of Aquitaine provinces such as the Rougerue, Quercy and Agenais quickly switched to the French. In the north, English raids went poorly, although the French were forced to abandon a planned invasion of England.

In 1370, the Black Prince made his last effort to fight back and mounted a campaign into Poitou which had so far stayed loyal. The Bishop of Limoges had switched his allegiance to Charles, but as the Black Prince advanced the French fell back, determined not to offer battle. The Black Prince sacked Limoges.

Froissart's chronicle accused the Black Prince of indiscriminate slaughter of Limoges's citizens.In fact, it seems to have been all according to the normal rules of war – Limoges after all, refused to surrender. But Froissart himself seemed to be recognising the horror of war at least counterbalanced the stories of honour and chivalry, and had more sympathy for their victims.

The Prince…entered the city on foot with their companies…all of them were equipped for evil and ready to spread out across the city killing men, women and children as they had been ordered to do. It was heart rending to see the inhabitants throwing themselves on the ground before the prince as he passed, crying out ‘mercy, noble lord, mercy’. He was so enraged he heard them not. No one listened to their appeals as the invaders ran through with their swords everyone they found in their way. These people had nothing to do with the city’s treason but paid a dearer price than the great figures who had really been responsible.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/19/114-the-worm-in-the-apple/feed/4113 Fashion and Clothing in the 14th Centuryhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/12/113-fashion-and-clothing-in-the-14th-century/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/12/113-fashion-and-clothing-in-the-14th-century/#commentsSun, 12 Jan 2014 08:34:17 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/12/113-fashion-and-clothing-in-the-14th-century/Read More]]>Fashion finally comes to town in the 14th Century. At the start of the century people are wearing what they've been wearing for centuries. By the end of it there are a wide variety of styles people may choose. At the same time, Edward tries to keep everyone in their traditional roles through the Sumptuary Law of 1363.

A few changes in fashion

At the start of the 13th Century, you wore a long gown that hung from the shoulders, or alternatively you wore a long gown that hung from the shoulders.

Then in the mid 14th Century enraged chroniclers started noticing changes – clothes like the Cotehardie became more figure hugging, sleeves began widening, hood and liripipes were in.

By the end of the 14th century, chroniclers were apoplectic – Doublets, a padded Cotehardie, could be terribly short, coloured hose showed the outlines of the male buttock, shoes could be pointy to a daft degree.

The preamble to the Statute is briefer than the outraged start to the 1574 act, but makes its point:

Also, that people of handicraft and yeomen, shall neither take nor wear cloth of a higher price for their vesture or hosing than within forty shillings the whole cloth by way of buying, nor otherwise; nor stone, nor cloth of silk nor of silver, nor girdle, knife, button, ring, garter, nor ouche [a jewel] ribbon, chain, nor any such other things of gold or of silver, nor any manner of apparel embroidered, enamelled, nor of silk in any way; and that their wives, daughters, and children be of the same condition in their vesture and apparel; and that they wear no veil of silk, but only of yarn made within the realm, nor any manner of fur, nor of budge,2 but only lamb, coney, cat, and fox.

Also, that esquires and all manner of gentlemen under the estate of a knight which have not land or rent to the value of £100 a year shall not take nor wear cloth for their clothing or hose of a higher price than within the price of 4 marks the whole cloth, by way of buying or otherwise. . . and that their wives, daughters, and children be of the same condition. . . . But that esquires, which have land or rent to the value of 200 marks a year and above may take and wear cloths of the price of 5 marks the whole cloth, and cloth of silk and silver, ribbon, girdle, and other apparel reasonably garnished of silver; and that their wives, daughters, and children may wear fur turned up of miniver, without ermine or lettice [a kind of whitish grey fur] or any manner of stone, but for their heads.

Also, that carters, ploughmen, drivers of the plough, oxterds, cowherds, shepherds, swineherds, dairymen, and all other keepers of beasts, threshers of corn, and all manner of people of the estate of a groom, attending to husbandry, and other people that have not forty shillings of goods nor of chattels, shall not take nor wear any manner of cloth but blanket and russet, of wool, worth not more than 12d, and shall wear girdles of linen according to their estate; and that they come to eat and drink in the same manner that pertains to them, and not excessively. And it is ordained that if any wear or do contrary to any of the points aforesaid, that he shall forfeit to the king all the apparel that he has so worn against the form of his ordinance.

So, here’s a little table, as an easy to use guide

Who you are

Qualification

What you can wear

King

Anointed by God

Anything – push the boat out, be wild and magnificent as you can manage

Magnates

Lords with Lands worth £1,000 annually

No restrictions

Knights

Land worth 400 marks annually

Pretty much what you want, but no weasel fur, ermine or clothing with precious stones sewn in.

Knights

Land worth 200 marks annually

Cloth worth no more than 6 marks (£4) for a whole cloth.

No cloth of gold. No use of Miniver or ermine or clothes with jewels sewn in.

Esquires

Land worth £200 per year

Cloth worth no more than 5 marks (£3 1/3rd ) for a whole cloth.

No cloth of gold, but they can wear cloth of silk or silver and Miniver or Weasel, but no ermine or clothes with jewels sewn in.

Esquires and Gentlemen

Land worth £100 per year

Cloth worth no more than 4 ½ marks (£3) for a whole cloth.

No cloth of gold, silk or silver, precious fur or enamel work.

Merchants

Goods to the value of £1,000

Cloth worth no more than 5 marks (£3 1/3rd ) for a whole cloth.

No cloth of gold, but they can wear cloth of silk or silver and Miniver or Weasel, but no ermine or clothes with jewels sewn in.

No jewels, gold, silver, embroidery, enamelware poor silk; no fur except lamb, rabbit, cat or fox. Women not to wear a veil worth more than 12d.

Everyone working on the land

Goods worth less than 40 shilling (£2)

No cloth except blanket and russet at 12d per ell. Belts of rope or linen.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/12/113-fashion-and-clothing-in-the-14th-century/feed/3112 On the Crest of a Wavehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/05/112-on-the-crest-of-a-wave/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/05/112-on-the-crest-of-a-wave/#respondSun, 05 Jan 2014 08:31:26 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/05/112-on-the-crest-of-a-wave/Read More]]>After the victory at Poitiers and capture of the French King, the English seemed to hold all the cards, and the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360 for a while maintained this illusion. Edward basked in his glories, and made sure he had provided for his thre eldest sons – Edward, Lionel and John.

With the consistent refusal by the Dauphin to ratify the treaties of London drawn up by John and Edward, in 1360, Edward launched his last major invasion of France. He planned to crown himself king of France in the ancient city of Rheims.

The campaign was not a success – it rained and rained, the walls of Rheims were too strong for Edward to overcome, and he was reduced to an extended raid. Equally, the Dauphin Charles was impotent in the face of the supremacy of English arms, and could do nothing to remove him.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2014/01/05/112-on-the-crest-of-a-wave/feed/0111 Poitiershttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/12/08/111-poitiers/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/12/08/111-poitiers/#respondSun, 08 Dec 2013 09:12:13 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/12/08/111-poitiers/Read More]]>1356 saw one of the greatest exchange of arms of the war. Early in the year, the Duke of Lancaster attacked into Normandy and with lightening marches ran rings round the French King. Then in the south the Black Prince attacked into the Poitou, seeking to link up with Lancaster on a march towards Paris. The campaign would end of the field of Poitiers as once again an English army faced a much bigger French opponent.

Below is a slide show of the Black Prince's camapign of 1356, starting in Bordeaux and ending on a field outside Poitiers. (further below is a slide show of the battle itself!). You can let this animation run at it's own speed, or click pause and then move the show on as you wish with the 'next' and 'prev' buttons. Enormous thanks to Andy Flaster and Jonathan Crowther for making this look good and all the technology stuff.

The Poitiers Campaign

And here's the slideshow of the battle itself…You can again let this animation run at it's own speed, or click pause and then move the show on as you wish with the 'next' and 'prev' buttons. Enormous thanks to Andy Flaster and Jonathan Crowther for all the technology stuff.

The Battle of Poitiers

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/12/08/111-poitiers/feed/0110a Shakespeare by David McLainhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/12/01/110a-shakespeare-by-david-mclain/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/12/01/110a-shakespeare-by-david-mclain/#commentsSun, 01 Dec 2013 06:47:40 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/12/01/110a-shakespeare-by-david-mclain/Read More]]>I agree that it's a bit out of phase but you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. David McClain here gives us all a fascinating hour on some hack called William Shakespeare who wrote some plays in the 16th/17th Century.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/12/01/110a-shakespeare-by-david-mclain/feed/2110 Fire and Swordhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/17/110-fire-and-sword/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/17/110-fire-and-sword/#respondSun, 17 Nov 2013 11:33:04 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/17/110-fire-and-sword/Read More]]>In 1354 – 1355 Edward and his court wavered between optimism that a negotiated settlement was within their grasp – and determination to continue to prosecute the war. The Treaty of Guines looked to have given Edward more than he could have hoped for – Aquitaine, Anjou and Calais in return for peace and the renunciation of his claims. But in the end it was to be war again. The Black Prince started things off with the Great Chevaucee.

The Great Chevaucee

The Black Prince gained his first independent command, appointed by his father to the province of Gascony. He was to spend much of his life there, and his son and heir would be born in Bordeaux. His first campaign showed that the early promise of Crecy was to be fulfilled – a daring raid across southern France right across to the Mediterranean, while the French watched incapable of stopping him.

The chevaucee gained no territory. But it exposed the weakness of French arms, it took the wealth of the south away from king John while they rebuilt their defences, and established a fearsome reputation for the Prince.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/17/110-fire-and-sword/feed/0109 The War between the Warshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/10/109-the-war-between-the-wars/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/10/109-the-war-between-the-wars/#respondSun, 10 Nov 2013 09:16:19 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/10/109-the-war-between-the-wars/Read More]]>The period between 1347 and 1353 was one of low level war and violence; punctuated by more or less effective truces. But even the truces don't stop the low level local violence that saw a creeping chaos in areas of France. Meanwhile at home, Edward's parliaments of 1351-3 introduced a range of legislation and saw the Commons become a more unified coherent unit.

The Statute of Treason 1352

It is faintly odd that this staute should have been introduced by a man who was far more forgiving and successful at avoiding treason trials that his grandfather, father or indeed grandson. It may have been the long delayed trial of some of the murderers of Edward II that prompted Edward to bring the statute forward. The first half of the statute, concerning High Treason remains in force. The second part about Petty Treason of a man against his lord, was repealed in 1828.

Item, whereas divers opinions have been before this time in what cases treason shall be said, and in what not; the King, at the request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a Declaration in the manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say:

When a man doth compass or imagine the death of our Lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir; or if a man do violate the King’s wife or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir; or if a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be attainted of open deed by men of their rank; and if a man counterfeit the king’s great or privy seal or his money; and if a man slay the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assize, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices. And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, anything ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty. An of such treason the forfeiture of the escheats belongs to our sovereign lord the king.

And moreover there is another kind of treason, that is to say when a servant slays his master, or a wife her husband, or when a secular cleric or a religious kills his prelate, to whom he owes faith and obedience; and in such kinds of treason the escheats ought to pertain to every lord of his own fee.

And as many other similar cases of treason may happen in time to come, which a man cannot think nor declare at the present time, it is agreed that if any other case, supposed treason, which is not specified above, should come before any justices, the justices shall wait, without passing sentence of treason, till the case be shown and declared before the king and his parliament, whether it ought to be judged treason or some other felony.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/10/109-the-war-between-the-wars/feed/0108 What has the Black Death ever done for you?https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/03/108-what-has-the-black-death-ever-done-for-you/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/03/108-what-has-the-black-death-ever-done-for-you/#commentsSun, 03 Nov 2013 11:08:41 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/03/108-what-has-the-black-death-ever-done-for-you/Read More]]>The theory runs that the Black Death transformed medieval society. With a dramatic shortage of labour, the English peasant was able to demand whatever wages and terms they wanted – liberating the English from serfdom. Is this true? And what other impacts did the Black Death have on the medieval mind?

Population in Europe

The only thing we can be sure of when looking at medieval population is that no one knows the answer. But the table here gives a rough range form the estimates I've been able to find. As you can see, England is a tiddler.

The Stature of Labourers, 1351

Medieval England was a structured and traditional society that valued stability far more than change. The statute was the barefaced attempt by the powers that be to keep everythiung exactly as it was. Here's the text of most of the Statute.

Whereas late against the malice of servants, which were idle, and not willing to serve after the pestilence, without taking excessive wages, it was ordained by our lord the king, and by the assent of the prelates, nobles, and other of his council, that such manner of servants, as well men as women, should be bound to serve, receiving salary and wages, accustomed in places where they ought to serve in the twentieth year of the reign of the king that now is, or five or six years before; and that the same servants refusing to serve in such manner should be punished by imprisonment of their bodies, as in the said statute is more plainly contained: whereupon commissions were made to divers people in every county to inquire and punish all them which offend against the same: and now forasmuch as it is given the king to understand in this present parliament, by the petition of the commonalty, that the said servants having no regard to the said ordinance, but to their ease and singular covetise, do withdraw themselves to serve great men and other, unless they have livery and wages to the double or treble of that they were wont to take the said twentieth year, and before, to the great damage of the great men, and impoverishing of all the said commonalty, whereof the said commonalty prayeth remedy: wherefore in the said parliament, by the assent of the said prelates, earls, barons, and other great men, and of the same commonalty there assembled, to refrain the malice of the said servants, be ordained and established the things underwritten:

First, that carters, ploughmen, drivers of the plough, shepherds, swineherds, deies [dairy maids], and all other servants, shall take liveries and wages, accustomed the said twentieth year, or four years before; so that in the country where wheat was wont to be given, they shall take for the bushel ten pence, or wheat at the will of the giver, till it be otherwise ordained. And that they be allowed to serve by a whole year, or by other usual terms, and not by the day; and that none pay in the time of sarcling [hoeing] or hay-making but a penny the day; and a mower of meadows for the acre five pence, or by the day five pence; and reapers of corn in the first week of August two pence, and the second three pence, and so till the end of August, and less in the country where less was wont to be given, without meat or drink, or other courtesy to be demanded, given, or taken; and that such workmen bring openly in their hands to the merchant-towns their instruments, and there shall be hired in a common place and not privy.

Item, that none take for the threshing of a quarter of wheat or rye over 2 d. ob. [2 1/2 d.] and the quarter of barley, beans, pease, and oats, 1 d. ob. if so much were wont to be given; and in the country where it is used to reap tby certain sheaves, and to thresh by certain bushels, they shall take no more nor in other manner than was wont the said twentieth year and before; and that the same servants be sworn two times in the year before lords, stewards, bailiffs, and constables of every town, to hold and do these ordinances; and that none of them go out of the town, where he dwelleth in the winter, to serve the summer, if he may serve in the same town, taking as before is said. Saving that the people of the counties of Stafford, Lancaster and Derby, and people of Craven, and of the marches of Wales and Scotland, and other places, may come in time of August, and labor in other counties, and safely return, as they were wont to do before this time: and that those, which refuse to take such oath or to perform that that they be sworn to, or have taken upon them, shall be put in the stocks by the said lords, stewards, bailiffs, and constables of the towns by three days or more, or sent to the next gaol, there to remain, till they will justify themselves. And that stocks be made in every town for such occasion betwixt this and the feast of Pentecost.

Item, that carpenters, masons, and tilers, and other workmen of houses, shall not take by the day for their work, but in manner as they were wont, that is to say: a master carpenter 3 d. and another 2 d.; and master free-stone mason 4 d. and other masons 3 d. and their servants 1 d. ob.; tilers 3 d. and their knaves 1 d. ob.; and other coverers of fern and straw 3 d. and their knaves 1 d. ob.; plasterers and other workers of mudwalls, and their knaves, by the same manner, without meat or drink, 1 s. from Easter to Saint Michael; and from that time less, according to the rate and discretion of the justices, which should be thereto assigned: and that they that make carriage by land or by water, shall take no more for such carriage to be made, than they were wont the said twentieth year, and four years before.

Item, that cordwainers and shoemakers shall not sell boots nor shoes, nor none other thing touching their mystery, in any other manner than they were wont the said twentieth year: item, that goldsmiths, saddlers, horsemsiths, spurriers, tanners, curriers, tawers of leather, tailors, and other workmen, artificers, and laborers, and all other servants here not specified, shall be sworn before the justices, to do and use their crafts and offices in the manner they were wont to do the said twentieth year, and in time before, without refusing the same because of this ordinance; and if any of the said servants, laborers, workmen, or artificers, after such oath made, come against this ordinance, he shall be punished by fine and ransom, and imprisonment after the discretion of the justices.

Item, that the said stewards, bailiffs, and constables of the said towns, be sworn before the same justices, to inquire diligently by all the good ways they may, of all them that come against this ordinance, and to certify the same justices of their names at all times, when they shall come into the country to make their sessions; so that the same justices on certificate of the same stewards, bailiffs, and constables, of the names of the rebels, shall do them to be attached by their body, to be before the said justices, to answer of such contempts, so that they make fine and ransom to the king, in case they be attainted; and moreover to be commanded to prison, there to remain till they have found surety, to serve, and take, and do their work, and to sell things vendible in the manner aforesaid; and in case that any of them come against his oath, and be thereof attainted, he shall have imprisonment of forty days; and if he be another time convict, he shall have imprisonment of a quarter of a year, so that at every time that he offendeth and is convict, he shall have double pain: and that the same justices, at every time that they come [into the country], shall inquire of the said stewards, bailiffs, and constables, if they have made a good and lawful certificate, or any conceal for gift, procurement, or affinity, and punish them by fine and ransom, if they be found guilty: and that the same justices have power to inquire and make due punishment of the said ministers, laborers, workmen, and other servants; and also of hostelers, harbergers [those who provide lodging], and of those that sell victual by retail, or other things here not specified, as well at the suit of the party, as by presentment, and to hear and determine, and put the things in execution by the exigend after the first capias, if need be, and to depute other under them, as many and such as they shall see best for the keeping of the same ordinance; and that they which will sue against such servants, workmen, laborers, [and artificers], for excess taken of them and they be thereof attainted at their suit, they shall have again such excess. And in case that none will sue, to have again such excess, then it shall be levied of the said servants, laborers, workmen, and artificers, and delivered to the collectors of the Quintzime [the tax known as the "Fifteenth"], in alleviation of the towns where such excesses were taken.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/11/03/108-what-has-the-black-death-ever-done-for-you/feed/3107 The Death of Joanhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/20/107-the-death-of-joan/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/20/107-the-death-of-joan/#commentsSun, 20 Oct 2013 09:38:45 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/20/107-the-death-of-joan/Read More]]>In 1348 a 14 year old royal princess, Joan, set out from Portsmouth to marry Pedro of Castile. Her route went by Bordeaux, and with the massive trousseau she carried – enough to fill an entire ship – she would have expected a comfortable journey. But Joan never arrived.

The Black Death

I think there has been so much written about the Black Death that I am not going to repeat it all here. As ever, Wikipedia is as good an account as any, so go the the Black Death page.

The most famous descriptions of the plague come from Italy. Below is a quote that famously communicates a little part of its horror.

The mortality in Siena began in May. It was a cruel and horrible thing. . . . It seemed that almost everyone became stupefied seeing the pain. It is impossible for the human tongue to recount the awful truth. … Father abandoned child, wife husband, one brother another; for this illness seemed to strike through breath and sight. And so they died. None could be found to bury the dead for money or friendship. And as soon as ditches were filled, more were dug. I, Agnolo di Tura called the Fat buried my five children with my own hands. . . . And so many died that all believed it was the end of the world

Joan Plantagenet

Joan was one of the first victims of the plague. As she traveled to Castile to marry Pedro, the king of Castile's son and heir, she caught the plague in Bordeaux and died in a little village called Loremo. When Edward heard, he wrote to the king of Castile:

"…your Magnificence knows how…we sent our…daughter to Bordeaux, en route for your territories in Spain. But see, with what intense bitterness of heart we have to tell you this, destructive Death (who seizes young and old alike, sparing no one and reducing rich and poor to the same level) has lamentably snatched from both of us our dearest daughter, whom we loved best of all, as her virtues demanded"

"No fellow human being could be surprised if we were inwardly desolated by the sting of this bitter grief, for we are humans too. But we, who have placed our trust in God and our Life between his hands, where he has held it closely through many great dangers, we give thanks to him that one of our own family, free of all stain, whom we have loved with our life, has been sent ahead to Heaven to reign among the choirs of virgins, where she can gladly intercede for our offenses before God Himself"

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/20/107-the-death-of-joan/feed/4106 Calais and Neville’s Crosshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/13/106-calais-and-nevilles-cross/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/13/106-calais-and-nevilles-cross/#respondSun, 13 Oct 2013 09:04:41 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/13/106-calais-and-nevilles-cross/Read More]]>By the end of the march across Normandy in 1346, Edward had accepted that he was not going to be able to hold French territory. But he had a clear objective – Calais. Philip meanwhile now hoped that the Scots would invade an empty, defenceless England and Edward would have to abandon his plans and rush back home.

Calais in 1346 was not a big and important town, not a particularly important trading centre – but it had two key factors that made it significant. It was of course very close to England; and it had a massive and well designed fortifications. So off Edward set to Calais.

It was a tough target, completely surrounded by water. On the north die was a harbour, separated from the town by a moat and wall

In the North West was the castle with a circular keep and bailey, defended by an independent system of moats and curtain walls

Outside the town was an expanse of bleak marshland crossed by lots of small rivers and shifting causeways. The ground was too soft for siege engines or mining

Pretty soon, outside Calais sat a new, temporary town of Villeneuve-la-Hardie, or 'Brave new town'. Given that the English army was now 34,000 strong, this was a town bigger than any English town outside London. Edward had prepared for the long game, know that assault was almost certain to fail. But the defences constructed by the besiegers made it almost impossible for the French to shift them, which Philip found to his cost.

The siege took 11 months, and was successful at least in part because of the surge of public support after the victory at Crecy. Eventually, you get Froissart's superb theatre of the surrender. The negotiation between Walter Manny and the French commander, Jean de Vienne; Edward's implacable determination to make the town suffer; the 6 burghers, bareheaded and wearing halters, the sacrificial lambs to assuage the fierce king's anger; and the mercy of Phillipa, throwing herself onto her knees in front of Edward to win his mercy. The message was pretty clear – the King of England decided the fate of French subjects, hate it or loathe it.

The Battle of Neville's Cross, 17th October 1346

King David of Scotland marched south with a well prepared invasion, heart full of glee to have England, as he thought, at his mercy. Trouble is, he rather messed about – taking time to capture castles on the border that he could have easily left alone. Which gave the English wardens of the Nothern Marches – Henry Percy and Ralph Neville – and the Archbishop of York time to gather an army. The tradition was that all the lands north of the river Trent were to be devoted to beating off the Scots.

William Douglas, the hugely successful Scottish warrior, met the English forces in fog outside Durham. He fell back after a bit of a mauling, and David chose his ground and waited. Both sides faced each other over ground broken by stone walls both waited for the other to attack, since that was the pathway to victory it seemed, after Crecy. Eventually, the English advanced some archers and started tormenting the Scots. David lost his patience and attacked – now over the very ground he'd chosen as perfect for defence. Not good. The scots were defeated and David found and captured under a bridge, and lobbed into the Tower of London. The whole thing was a disaster for the Scots – and England were to have peace for many years.

The Battle of La Roche Derrien, 18th June 1347

In 1346/7, Charles of Blois was able to ride roughshod over Thomas Dagworth and the English in Brittany with a much larger army. Eventually he tipped up at La Roche Derrien – Dagworth's only port in northern Brittany. Charles hoped to lure Dagworth into attacking, with a far smaller army, so that Charles could destroy him.

Dagworth took the bait – with just 700 men to the 5,000 French, he attacked in the middle of the night. He'd noticed that Charles's army was in 4 segments, separated by marsh and wood land, so maybe he could beat each section, helped by a surprise attack.

Charles was not surprised. And so was waiting in full armour when Dagworth and his men crept into camp. And so it was going badly for Dagworth. But then the castle sallied, and suddenly Charles was in trouble, and captured in a windmill. And then yes, Dagworth beat each segment of the French army in turn.

Charles meanwhile went off to join David in the Tower of London, and his cause in Brittany lay in ruins.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/13/106-calais-and-nevilles-cross/feed/0105 Crecyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/06/105-crecy/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/06/105-crecy/#commentsSun, 06 Oct 2013 10:28:46 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/06/105-crecy/Read More]]>In 1346 Edward invaded finally launched the invasion he had hoped to lead in 1345. The target was Normandy a devastating raid through northern France, a glorious victory in battle followed by – well who knows. There followed a tense campaign that teetered on the edge of disaster until the two armies finally met outside the village of Crecy on 26th August 1346.

Below is an animated map of the Crecy campaign. You might wonder why it looks smarter that the other ones – and that's because Andy helped me out. Thanks Andy.

After victory at Caen, in fact the Crecy campaign teetered constantly on the edge of disaster, as the problems of cross the Seine threatened a miserable end to the campaign, or a superior French army threatened to trap them.

The Battle of Crecy, 26th August 1346

And here's also an animated map of the battle of Crecy in all it's glory!

Click on the image to start the animation

It is easy to over exaggerate the long term significance of Crecy – there are slightly potty claims made for the battle that it transformed society by making the peasant aware of their own power, that it caused the death of feudalism, transformed European relations…and really it didn’t. No one for a moment thought that now England should be thought of as the leading nation of Christendom. And militarily in some way’s it was also a bit irrelevant; Edward simply did not have the manpower to hold on to the areas he had supposedly conquered, and within 20 years most of what he’d gained was lost.

But that’s not to say that Crecy was not remarkable, because it was. The news came to Christendom like a bombshell. It gave Edward the opportunity to attack Calais, a decision which would most certainly have an impact in prolonging war . The wave of support in England the victory generated allowed Edward to tax his country to support the continuation of the war. And we have to give Edward the credit. A superb strategy – a 3 pronged campaign which confused and diffused Philip’s response. The courage of the tactical decisions Edward made which could have led to disaster at any point, the leadership to maintain English confidence in the face of overwhelming numbers; tactical mastery of the battlefield, showing restraint and discipline and well as innovation and courage.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/10/06/105-crecy/feed/8104 Lancaster and the Battle of Auberochehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/29/104-lancaster-and-the-battle-of-auberoche/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/29/104-lancaster-and-the-battle-of-auberoche/#commentsSun, 29 Sep 2013 12:01:55 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/29/104-lancaster-and-the-battle-of-auberoche/Read More]]>Edward had little intention of keeping the truce for long. After a brief period of reconstruction, he repudiated the truce a year early. And so enters one of the most attractive figures of the hundred years war – Henry of Grosmont, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Lancaster. His campaign in 1345 finally proves that the English can win.

Henry of Grosmont was the son of the earl of Lancaster, antagonist of Isabella and Mortimer. He's born in 1310, and from 1337 he was known as the Earl of Derby. On his father's death in 1345 he became the Earl of Lancaster. I could write a biography about him, but I don't have much time available…and anyway, Kathryn Warner has already done so on her blog. So to read more about a genuinely fascinating and attractive man, go to Kathryn's blog.

Edward dismissed the papal negotiators and repudiated the truce in early 1345. He had a plan. He would attack into northern France, Billy Bohun would take a small army to Brittany, and Henry of Grosmont would lead a campaign in the south west. French intelligence was good – so they concentrated on the north. Unfortunately for them, English inefficiency sold them a dummy – Edward would not sail until 1346, and meanwhile Henry of Lancaster (let's call him that, it's easier) had a free hand.

A change of strategy

One of the great contributions Lancaster made was in changing the way the English thought about strategy in the south west. Medieval warfare was often a painstaking business of taking castles one by one. This was the Seneschal's strategy. Lancaster changed all that. He favoured the chevaucee, quick, fast movements attacking into the heart of French lands before they could concentrate their forces.

Bergerac and Auberoche

Lancaster marched day and night and appeared before the walls of Bergerac before the French knew he was on the way. Before hte end of the day, Bergerac had fallen. After a delay to gather his forces, Lancaster marched on to Perigueux, and settled down to starve them out.

The Duke of Normandy finally gathered enough forces to respond, and his captain Louis of Poitiers drove Lancaster away. Lancaster withdrew to Bordeaux, leaving garrisons in the area. Louis, however, was determined to leave no base for future English operations. He laid siege to Auberoche, and it's English castellan Alexdandre de Caumont.

Lancaster responded with another lightening quick march with Walter Manny and 1,200 men at arms to Auberoche, hoping to shore up the defences until the Earl of Pembroke, with the main army could arrive.

Lancaster and Manny watched the French from the woods as they watched Auberoche, relaxed and confident in the knowledge that their forces were way superior and no English were near. It was clear that Pembroke would not arrive soon.

In the encounter that followed, English Aarchers, cavalry and the advantage of a surprise attack combined to win for Lancaster a victory of 1,200 men over 7,000. In the end, a sortie by Caumont into the rear of the French broke them, and Lancaster had won a magnificent vistory.

The reward was the town and castle of La Reole. The French were in no position to stop Lancaster as he marched south and with the help of the townspeople, took the castle in Janaury 1346.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/29/104-lancaster-and-the-battle-of-auberoche/feed/2103 The war in Brittanyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/08/103-the-war-in-brittany/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/08/103-the-war-in-brittany/#respondSun, 08 Sep 2013 08:56:53 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/08/103-the-war-in-brittany/Read More]]>1341 saw a serious political crisis – Edward returned home determined to put his English administration, parliament and particularly Archbishop in their places. In fact it's Edward who is forced to back down and accept a punitive legislative programme to rebuild his partnership with the political community. With a truce in place, Edward was saved from a life of fun and luxury by the start of civil war with a disputed succession to the Duchy of Brittany.

The crisis of 1341

Edward had returned and sacked his ministers, determined to show that his defeat was the result of incompetence on behalf of his ministers, not because it was a losing strategy. His household officials pretty much took the law into their own hands in trying to collect the tax approved in 1340 and getting the clergy to cough up. But the money was still not forthcoming, and a storm of protest, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, arose at these methods.

In the end Edward had to give way, and call a parliament. He was forced to accept a series of new statutes from the Commons – although a year later in happier times to cancelled all of them. But it was a significant defeat for Edward – but also significant in the way Edward accepted the result, and re-established harmony with his magnates and parliament, not something his predecessor would have been able to do.

Civil War in Brittany

The topography of Brittany

Think of Brittany in 2 parts. To the east, fertile country similar to neighbouring Maine and Anjou, easily accessible to the rest of France – Gallo-Brittany. To the west, Breton Brittany; a central rocky and hilly central spine (then heavily forested) and a coastal strip of communities.

The succession and start of the war

The death of the Duke of Brittany led to a disputed succession:

John Montfort and his wife Jeanne de Flandre.

Jeanne de Penthievre, and her husband the French king's nephew Charles of Blois

Almost to a man, with a few exceptions, the Bretons accepted Charles. But John and the Countess of Montfort reacted to the Duke's death quickly, taking possession of key towns and the ducal treasury.

Charles of Bloix soon arrived with a large army and the backing of the French king, and before long had swept most of Brittany clear. Montfort was imprisoned in Paris. Just a few strongholds remained for the Montfort's, including Auray, Brest and the castle of Hennebont, held by the Countess.

William Bohun, Earl of Northampton and the Battle of Morlaix

Northampton finally arrived to help with an army of 2,400, split 50/50 men at arms and archers. At first Charles of Blois retreated but as Northampton advanced to besiege Morlaix he returned with an army of maybe 3 times the size. In the ensuing battle, Blois was driven off despite his superior numbers. There's a good description on Wikipedia here.

Morlaix is significant becuase it's the first real battle in the Hundred Years war, and it has many features of later English victories – a defensive well chosen position, dismounted knights/men at arms, the impact of the longbow in the hand of English archers.

The Truce of Malestroit, January 1343

In the autumn of 1342, Edward arrived with an army that took the English presence to 5,000 men. He took over most of western Brittany, but was held up at Vannes. And then meanwhile Jean, Duke of Normandy and the French heir, arrived with a considerably larger army in Nantes.

Edward was vulnerable, with a much smaller army. But incredibly the Duke offered a Truce – and Edward almost snatched his hand off in enthusiasm to accept. The terms were generous – lands in all theatres to be held as they were at the date of the truce, January 1343. It meant that the Montfort claim had survived despite at one stage coming very close to extinction.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/08/103-the-war-in-brittany/feed/0102 Highs and Lowshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/01/102-highs-and-lows/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/01/102-highs-and-lows/#commentsSun, 01 Sep 2013 08:05:48 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/01/102-highs-and-lows/Read More]]>In 1340 against all the odds – of numbers and quality – Edward defeated Philip VIth's Great Army of the Sea at Sluys. The impact on morale, English and French was dramatic. But none the less Edward's campaign still failed at the walls of Tournai, and his problems of debt and discordant allies rose like a flood around him.

The Battle of Sluys, 23rd June 1340

The background

Edward was in Ipswich with his great council in June 1340, when the news came that Philip VIth's Great Army of the Sea had brutally taken the Flemish port of Sluys. The plan was to keep Edward and his allies apart, and with the uncertainty of finding ships at sea, the French took the approach of blockading the main Flemish port.

Edward had to get to Flanders before his alliance fell to pieces, and before the campaigning season came to an end. But the Archbishop of Canterbury, his admiral John Crabbe and his Great Council were vehemently opposed – the odds they said were too great. Edward was furious, and determined to attack. He lectured the Great Council:

‘You and the archbishop are in league, preaching me a sermon to stop me crossing! Let me tell you this: I will cross and you who are frightened where there is no fear, you may stay at home’

The Fleets

The Council were right of course. The French Fleet was wildly superior in both size and quality, on paper. The French had 213 ships. Most were Cogs, but they also had a core of oared Genoese Galleys; the Grimaldi of Monaco had also worked for the French crown with Galleys like those in the picture. Plus they had royal Cogs designed for war, and a massive complement of sailors and soldiers – 19,000 on them.

By contract, Edward's fleet was much smaller at between 120 and 160 ships, and were entirely made up of Cogs, merchantmen pressed into service.

The Battle

The French had blocked the harbour of Sluys by putting their ships into 3 lines across the entrance to the harbour. The first line held their largest Cogs, Royal barges and Galleys

Edward delayed his attack to make sure the enemy could not come out the the harbour and flank him, and to make sure the sun was in the faces of the French crossbowmen. Then he led the attack, in his flagship the Cog Thomas. They went straight for the French Flagship, the Cog Christopher – ironically, an ex English ship captured by the French.

The fighting was hard and brutal – for 4 hours the two fleets fought. Edward was wounded in the thigh, and reduced to shouting orders from the Thomas, and the Christopher. As Froissart recorded:

‘It is indeed a bloody and murderous battle. Sea-fights are always fiercer than fights on land, because retreat and flight are impossible. Every man is required to hazard his life and hope for success, relying on his own personal bravery and skill’

At around 7 pm, the second line of French ships saw the English breaking through the first line – the English had beaten the biggest and the best of the French fleet.

The weakness of the French strategy then became clear – having beaten the best of the French fleet, hammering the 2nd and 3rd lines was never in doubt, though hard. In the rear, the Flemings, seeing how it was all going, launched their boats and attacked the Norman Merchantmen who made up the third line.

The result, and why

The result was a massive English victory, so complete because so few French ships could escape. As many as 16,000 French seamen and soldiers died. So why did they lose? Well…

The French strategy sucked. Bunched together across the harbour they were unable to use the superior maneuverability of their galleys

The French strategy sucked. Essentially they allowed the English to engage 3 separate fleets of say 70 ships each, and therefore failed to make their bigger numbers count

The Longbow. It will get boring but the Longbow wa a superior weapon in almost every way to the French ranged weapon, the crossbow. At shorter range, the Crossbow had greater penetration; and any old fool could use it, whereas using the bow was a lifetime of training. But the rate of fire was poxy (less than half that o f a longbow) and the range shorter. So as the English ships approached, they swept the French fore- and aft- castles clear of men.

Edward. Let's give the lad some credit. He inspired a much smaller fleet to attack and defeat the French, the leaders of christendom. Whatever you think of him, he was a superb warrior and war leader.

Consequences

Were less dramatic than you might think. It was NOT the end of French presence in the Channel. It was not the end ot French raids on the south coast. But it was the end of French dominance of the channel, which had til then seemed very close. And it made a world of difference to morale – the English suddenly saw they could win, the French that they could lose. Edward at last had a success to build on.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/09/01/102-highs-and-lows/feed/2101 King of France and Englandhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/08/18/101-king-of-france-and-england/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/08/18/101-king-of-france-and-england/#respondSun, 18 Aug 2013 09:43:32 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/08/18/101-king-of-france-and-england/Read More]]>Edward faced a weary time, a weary time. His allies demanded money, he had none to give them. So they refused to fight, while the French closed in on Gascony and raided the south coast of England. Edward handed out impossible orders, sacked perfectly competent ministers and became increasingly isolated from his parliament, magnates and ministers. Against this background, in the Friday market at Ghent in 1340, Edward declared himself king of France.

The allies

Edward's diplomats did a good job of assembling an impressive army of allies – in numbers at least. But it cost hin a fortune, and really there was little community of interest. They constantly demanded their money and refused to march without it. Edward was practically a prisoner in the low countries.

The campaigns of 1338-1339…

…were a non event for England. In 1338, the allies refused to move without pay. In 1339 they did the same – so Edward said he would go alone, and they'd be sorry when he died a hero's death, so there. Most of the allies reluctantly followed him, except the Holy Roman Emperor.

They moved to besieged Cambrai, a town in Hainault help by the French. So Edward lifted the siege and marched into France proper. There they met Philip VIth and the much larger French army. They faced each other at La Capelle, in full battle order. But the French wouldn't attack, and the allies couldn't. So in the end, the allies ran out of food and water, and had to leave and return to Antwerp.

Edward III declares himself king of France

Why did Edward do it? It is reasonably unlikely that even Edward felt he had a good claim, and though he may have convinced himself, it's very unlikely anyone else took it seriously. From the family tree below you can see that he did have a claim; it's just that Edward II had already neglected to advance it at the time, and Edward III had done homage to Philip VIth. Plus, French kings couldn't claim through the female line. Actually, by Edward's yardstick, a certain man known to history as Charles the Bad had an even closer blood relationship.

The reason he went for it was to bring Flanders into the war. Jacob van Artevelde wanted to avoid the punishment that would fall on him if he revoked his loyalty to the king of France – the Pope would impose an interdict and a fine. Also, he'd be seen by the world as a rebel. So the answer seemed to be to find a new king of France. And so Edward obliged.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/08/18/101-king-of-france-and-england/feed/0100 Theatres of Warhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/08/11/test/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/08/11/test/#commentsSun, 11 Aug 2013 09:33:55 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/08/11/test/Read More]]>This week, a bit of a scene setter; Edward and the development of consent from the commons in his parliaments, the theatres of the 100 years war ahead – and the revolt in Flanders led by Artevelde.

Edward and Parliament

Edward does not have the reputation of Edward I as a man with a constitutional mission. To my mind, he may deserve the accolade more. By the end of his reign parliament's role and structure had changed, and had become much more settled. SAnd part of this was the separation of Lord and Commons we recognise today.

The war in Gascony

For the first 8 years, although this was supposed to be a fight about Aquitaine, the main theatre of the war was in the north. Down in the south West, the English were usually but not always, on the back foot.

Click on the image for a brief animation

The Theatres of War

For this first phase of the war, 1337-1341, we had essentially 4 theatres of war:

The Low Countries – in the/to the north of France – Brabant, Flanders, Artois and northern France

The south west of France – Gascony

Scotland – the threat from behind as the Scots fought the 2nd war of independence

The English Channel, La Manche - the fight for dominance

Jacques Artevelde and the revolt in Flanders

In 1337, Jacques (or is it Jacob? I see both…locals might want to comment…) van Artevelde was made Captain General of Ghen, as Ghent threw off the authority of the Count of Flanders, Louis. Flanders was densely populated and uniquely industrialised – reliant for their livelihood on the cloth trade. Artevelde's view was that Flanders could not survive in opposition to England – because it needed English wool to survive. The English embargo on wool to Flanders and the resulting Flemish neutrality in 1338 is one of the few examples of a successful round of economic sanctions.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/08/11/test/feed/799a Stephen Guerra The Avignon Papacyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/07/14/99a-stephen-guerra-the-avignon-papacy/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/07/14/99a-stephen-guerra-the-avignon-papacy/#respondSun, 14 Jul 2013 09:39:58 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/07/14/99a-stephen-guerra-the-avignon-papacy/The Story of the early 14th Century papacy and their exile in Avignon – a guest episode from Stephen Guerra

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/07/14/99a-stephen-guerra-the-avignon-papacy/feed/099 Year One of a Hundredhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/07/07/99-year-one-of-a-hundred/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/07/07/99-year-one-of-a-hundred/#commentsSun, 07 Jul 2013 08:55:26 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/07/07/99-year-one-of-a-hundred/Read More]]>Edward had traditionally received much of the blame before the start of the Hundred Years War. But in fact there were many reasons why France and England ended up going to war, and many of them relates to French aggression and support for the Scots. And in fact the catalyst for war is the declaration by Philip VI that he has removed the Duke of Aquitaine from his lands – i.e. Edward. This is as straightforward a declaration of war as you are ever likely to see.

The Vow of the Heron

In the 1340's a political poem appeared, which has been remarkably influential in keeping the blame of Edward's side for the start of the war. It's all terribly unfair, really it's not. The full text of the Vows of the Heron can be found here.

What started the Hundred Year's War.

So here's a quick list:

Edward was a young lad looking for a spot of fame and glory

Philip VI aggressively supported the Scots – and there's no way Edward could put up with this

PhilipVI raided the English coast – Edward couldn't put up with this either

Philip refused to accept English influence in Flanders and Brabant, which drove him to aggression against England

The Kings of France could not accept the control of Aquitaine by a vassal as powerful as the King of England.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/07/07/99-year-one-of-a-hundred/feed/598 The Disinheritedhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/30/98-the-disinherited/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/30/98-the-disinherited/#commentsSun, 30 Jun 2013 08:35:02 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/30/98-the-disinherited/Read More]]>In the early 1330's, Edward was a hero searching for a way to undo the humiliations visited on him by Mortimer and by the French. And Edward Balliol, son of the ex king of Scotland John Balliol, gave him his chance. At the battle of Dupplin Moor, Balliol against all the odds defeated a much large Scottish army, but could not hold Scotland. Edward now had the chance to prove himself – if he could keep the French as bay.

When Edward I and II had fought in Scotland, they had granted the estates of the Scottish lords to various English followers; and of coutse some Scottish lords had remained loyal to Edward, such as the Earl of Atholl, for example. The 'Shameful Treaty' of 1328 at Northamption removed their rights to these lands.

Edward Balliol and the Battle of Dupplin Moor, August 1332

Edward Balliol, son of John Balliol went north in 1332 with an English army of the Disinherited to claim his birthright. There he met the confident Earl of Mar who had much greater force – and the tiny army of 1,500 put the Scots to flight. But Edward balliol had no real support – and dewspite being crowned at Scone was surprised at Annan and by the end of the year was chased back to England.

The battle of Halidon Hill, July 1337

Edward III came out in open support, and march north to besiege Berwick. When the scots came to meet them and drive them away they were routed at the battle of Halidon Hill.

The battle was more important for the impact it has on tactics than the long term impact on Scottish history. Because although King David was forced to flee to Chateau Gaillard, and Edward Balliol enhjoyed a brief moment of power, he still had no support and would soon be back in England – and the Scottish wars would drag on. But in terms of tactics – here we see the English fighting with dismounted kinghts in teh centre, and archers on the flanks – and the devastation by caused.

A (hopefully) Handy Map

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/30/98-the-disinherited/feed/297 Above all Princes of his Agehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/23/97-above-all-princes-of-his-age/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/23/97-above-all-princes-of-his-age/#commentsSun, 23 Jun 2013 08:52:44 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/23/97-above-all-princes-of-his-age/Read More]]>In 1330 a group of Edward's friends gathered together at the foot of the rock on which Nottingham castle stands. They had learnt of a secret passage that led to Mortimer's private chambers, and were looking to free their lord from Mortimer's fierce grip. This week, then, the start of Edward's majority, a survey of how history has treated Edward, and a few of the Chroniclers we will talk about.

Edward's friends snuck through Nottingham castle, captured Mortimer and Edward's majority had begun. Here are a few of the dramatis personae – worth noting, since one of the thing about Edward was the group of great captains that he gathered around him – and some of them were in this group.

There was Edward de Bohun; just 18 in 1330, and the son of the Humphrey de Bohun who had died with a spear in his bottom at Boroughbridge. He would die on campaign, but his brother William would become Earl of Northampton and one of Edward's most successful commanders

Ralph Stafford, was a knight with lands worth about £200; so not a loser, but not part of rarefied heights of the upper baronage either. His father had died when he was just 7, and most of his childhood had been spent with his mother’s relatives in the west midlands. Now he was 29 in 1330. He’d fought with Prince Edward in Scotland. He would become Earl of Stafford, and make it almost all theway through the reign.

Robert Ufford was a knight from Suffolk, 32 at this time. He’d fought alongside the Earl of Kent in Gascony, and was a banneret in the young prince’s household. He would become Earl of Suffolk.

William Clinton was another household knight. We don’t know exactly how old he was at the time, but certainly less than 30. He’d been part of the entourage that had brought Phillipa of Hainault over to England to marry the young prince. He would become Earl of Huntingdon.

A brief historiography of Edward III

Bishop Stubbs drew a parallel between Richard I and Edward III; and you can see that in other ways. Both were seen by contemporaries as the epitome of christian kingship; both later lost their reputation and became criticised as feckless war mongers and fun-havers.

The Contemporary view.

The Brut is typical; Edward was a shining example of Christian kingship:

Full gracious among all the worthy men of the world, for he passed and shone by virtue and grace given to him from God, above all his predecessors who were noble men and worthy’

The Early Modern Era

Through the 15th-18th century, Edward's reputation remained the highest, and he acquired even more praise. Ian Mortimer singles out Joshua Barnes' book 'The History of that most victorious monarch Edward III…'. Here's a quote from it:

He was of quick apprehension, judicious and skillful in nature, elegant in speech, sweet, familiar and affable in behaviour; stern to the obstinate, but calm and meek to the humble. Magnanimous and courageous above all princes of his days

The Victorians

And then we get the Victorians. They were not so keen – they saw history through their own lens; this was a view of history as progress towards the then modern glories. The idea that Medieval Christendom valued stability and consensus was not a a virtue in their minds. May McKisak commented on them:

‘Historians whose whole thinking has been conditioned by notions of development, evolution and progress sometimes find it hard to recognise fully or remember consistently that these meant nothing to medieval man’

So let us take Bishop William Stubbs, a wonderful historian and a great read – but very much NOT the modern historian. Here's his view of Edward III:

Edward III was not a statesman, although he possessed some of the qualifications which might have made him a successful one. He was a warrior; ambitious, unscrupulous, selfish, extravagant and ostentatious. His obligations as a king sat very lightly on him. He felt himself bound by no special duty either to maintain the theory of royal supremacy or to follow a policy which would benefit his people. Like Richard I he valued England primarily as a source of supplies, and he saw no risk in parting with prerogatives which his grandfather would never have resigned.

The Modern view

The modern view has swung back, by viewing Edward and his achievements in context. W. M Ormrod quotes George Holmes:

‘In Edward III the Plantagenet line found its happiest king. Not perhaps the greatest…, he was essentially a successful warrior, who loved fighting and was good at it.

But it's probably May McKisak who did most to rehabilitate him. Here are some quotes:

EIII succeeded, where nearly all his predecessors had failed, in winning and holding the loyalty of his people and the affection of his magnates….he raised that dynasty from unexampled depths of degradation to a place of high renown in western Christendom.

For all his failings, it remains hard to deny an element of greatest in him, a courage and magnanimity which go far to sustain the verdict of one of the older writers that he was a prince who knew his work and did it.

Read some more…

Some extra reading if you want to know more about how history has treated Edward

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/16/96a-sharyn-eastaugh-the-templar-knights/feed/096 A history of Medieval Europe – Part IVhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/09/96-a-history-of-medieval-europe-part-iv/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/09/96-a-history-of-medieval-europe-part-iv/#commentsSun, 09 Jun 2013 10:04:47 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/09/96-a-history-of-medieval-europe-part-iv/Read More]]>With the defeat of the Hohenstaufen, surely the Papacy had finally won it's battle for supremacy? Actually not. A new challenge rode into town in the form of Phillip IVth of France. And meanwhile the very success of the struggle against the Emperor was to contribute towards the start of the end for that most medieval thing – the unity of Christendom.

Boniface was the antithesis of his saintly (and hopeless) predecessor Celestine; he was a player, a power broker, and he held a high view of the role of the Pope. But in his struggle with Phillip the Fair of France it became clear that the world had changed for ever. The Pope could no longer hope to sit at the head of a united christendom; despite the defeat of the Hohenstaufen, the kings of France, England, Leon-Castile all now stood at the head of kingdms increasing conscious of their own differences and local loyalties. Boniface was captured by Philip and his Italian Allies, the Colonna, at Agnagni but the local people were outraged by this treatment of the Pope, and freed him. But Boniface died later the same year, 1303, and the Papacy passed into one of it's darkest periods, including thte exile to Avignon.

The growth of Spain

As the Spanish kingdoms grew and consolidated, they begin to enter more into the mainstream of European politics – such as the struggles over Sicily between the Angevins and Aragonese. By the time of the Black Death Aragon was a successful maritime trading nation, Leon-Castile dominated the interior and the last Muslim kingdom of Granada. Portugal increasingly began to look to the Atlantic – leading to the great explorations of the 15th & 16th Centuries.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/09/96-a-history-of-medieval-europe-part-iv/feed/595 The History of Medieval Europe – Part IIIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/02/95-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-iii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/02/95-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-iii/#commentsSun, 02 Jun 2013 09:59:48 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/02/95-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-iii/Read More]]>Frederick II renewed the argument that had been going on since the time of Otto the Great – Emperor or Pope? This time there would be a solution one way or t'other. Meanwhile the unity of Christendom itself was under threat – ironically from one of it's greatest thinkers.

Frederick II – Stupor Mundi

Frederick II was the last effective Hohenstaufen, though the line of Barbarossa did not end until Conradin's death in 1268. Frederick was a child of Sicily, despite his life's mission to keep the Holy Roman Empire together, and establish the supremacy of the Emperor over the pope.

This meant he was a rather exotic mix of East and West; his menagerie, harem and muslim bodyguard were distinctly un-christian. Despite his talent, Frederick was never quite trusted.

For many years after his accession to the Imperial crown, Frederick managed to keep the Pope from the door as it were, by promising to go on Crusade. But when he did finally regain Jerusalem for the West – by negotiation – his bargaining chip had gone.

Just like Barbarossa, the key to the Empire was Lombardy in northern Italy. Despite early success, defeat at Parma in 1248 effective finished his cause and that of the Hohenstaufen.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/06/02/95-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-iii/feed/194a The Mysterious Death of Edward IIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/26/94a-the-mysterious-death-of-edward-ii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/26/94a-the-mysterious-death-of-edward-ii/#commentsSun, 26 May 2013 08:31:09 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/26/94a-the-mysterious-death-of-edward-ii/Read More]]>Time to vote? Did Edward die in 1327?

Now, traditionally, Edward II is supposed to have died after an unfortunate meeting with a red hot poker. Which had always been my firmly and fondly held belief.

But ladies and gentlemen,History sleuths, other views are, in fact, available. So this episode is all about whether Edward was

A) Murdered in 1327 on the orders of Roger Mortimer

B) Died but we don't know where or how

C) Edward III killed him, not Mortimer!

D) Escaped and with the active conivance and knowledge of said Mortimer lived incognito for many years as an ex-pat

E) Dunno

Now I realise that it's not easy to do this by podcast – much ink has been spilt after all. But hey – have a go at voting, either here or at the Facebook group.

So, just post a comment below. I'll tot them all up and we'll see which side wins…

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/26/94a-the-mysterious-death-of-edward-ii/feed/3794 The Reign of Isabella and Mortimerhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/12/94-the-reign-of-isabella-and-mortimer/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/12/94-the-reign-of-isabella-and-mortimer/#commentsSun, 12 May 2013 09:28:51 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/12/94-the-reign-of-isabella-and-mortimer/Read More]]>After Edward II's abdication in January 1327, England was ruled on behalf of the new King Edward III by Queen Isabella. But while Isabella probably wanted a life of respect, comfort and personal wealth Mortimer was hungry for power. This wasn't to be a story about the forces of life overturning the power of darkness. It was to be a new tyranny.

Deposition – and abdication

In high drama, at the parliament at Westminster Hall, Mortimer staged a session where it was demanded that Edward II must be replaced with good king Edward III. And so a solemn group went to meet with Edward at Kenilworth Castle. Poor Edward did not take it in a manly. There was a lot of sobbing, and sorrow that his people were grumpy with him. And then, helpfully, Edward abdicated. And so he became Edward of Caernarfon again, and by September 1327 he had died in Berkeley castle – of which more later. Edward III was duly crowned.

The Scots

Bruce and the Black Douglas continued to dance rings round the English. The campaign of 1327 was a fiasco for the English. The English marched to the north of England to teach the Scots a lesson. But the Scots danced around the English and Mortimer, probably quite sensibly refused to allow the English to attack when the Scots held strong positions. The result was peace with Scotland at last. Edward III was furious.

The fall of Henry of Lancaster

Henry of Lancaster, brother of Thomas of Lancaster, believed himself to be the obviously choice for royal adviser to Isabella. But in the end his supporters proved no more steadfast in the face of the name of the king, and January 1328 saw him kneeling in the January mud in front of Isabella, begging for mercy. He kept his life, but lost any political power

The tournament at Wigmore

By 1328 Mortimer was in his pomp. He had been made Earl of March. he had land and power. He sat by his lover the Queen in the guise of King Arthur. The chronicler Geoffrey le Baker says it all:

Roger Mortimer shone with all too transient honour and as Isabella’s chief Adviser his word was law…No one dared to address him by name, but only by the title of earl of March. Indeed as the earl went about he was accompanied by a greater band of courtiers than the king himself. He condescended to rise in the king’s presence; when walking with the king he would arrogantly walk at his side never giving him precedence but sometimes indeed walking before him.

His son Geoffrey called him King of Folly.

The Execution of the Earl of Kent

in March 1330, the Earl of Kent, half brother to the king, was dragged before the court. The evidence against him was pretty clear – for some reason, he'd become convinced that Edward of Caernarfon was alive and living at Corfe Castle. He was tried, and found guilty – but everyone expected him to be let off, after all he was the king's uncle and of royal blood. But Mortimer forced the young Edward to have him executed.

From that point, Edward and Mortimer were irreconcilable.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/12/94-the-reign-of-isabella-and-mortimer/feed/293 The Wages of Tyrannyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/05/93-the-wages-of-tyranny/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/05/93-the-wages-of-tyranny/#commentsSun, 05 May 2013 09:22:49 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/05/93-the-wages-of-tyranny/Read More]]>With the fall of Lancaster, the Despencers were off the leash, and able to vent the full force of their avarice on England. Their power and Edward's inability to control them even came between the king and Isabella – so that after a diplomatic mission to France Isabella refused to return. And then in 1326, she landed in England with 1,500 men and her rebel lover, Roger Mortimer.

Edward and Hugh Despencer fled to despencer's power base, the Welsh marches. But even there, they could find no support. they were eventually captured trying to get back to Despencers powerful fortress at Caerphilly. Despencer was given the same treatment Edward had given Lancaster – refused the chance to speak in his defence, and hanged, drawn and quartered.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/05/05/93-the-wages-of-tyranny/feed/392a The Cult of Thomas of Lancasterhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/28/92a-the-cult-of-thomas-of-lancaster/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/28/92a-the-cult-of-thomas-of-lancaster/#commentsSun, 28 Apr 2013 09:10:43 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/28/92a-the-cult-of-thomas-of-lancaster/Read More]]>Medieval man loved their saints. Remember the Anglo Saxons? Saints popping up all over the place. The Martyrdom of Thomas Beckett I suppose is reasonable, but cult of Simon de Montfort and bit more odd. Edward II, unpopular though he is, also had a period of saintliness. In this episode, Hannah looks at the afterlife of Thomas of Lancaster – how a pretty miserable bloke got a following that saw him as a saint. Hannah looks at the Brut, and how the chronicler subtly positions Lancaster's story to support his new status.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/28/92a-the-cult-of-thomas-of-lancaster/feed/492 The Fall of Lancasterhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/21/92-the-fall-of-lancaster/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/21/92-the-fall-of-lancaster/#commentsSun, 21 Apr 2013 10:56:27 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/21/92-the-fall-of-lancaster/Read More]]>Lancaster and Edward have been picking at each other for years. In 1322, things finally came to a head, and rebellion was out in the open. Lancaster must have had a fighting chance, but it all goes to show that the reign of Edward is essentially about a struggle between mediocrities.

Edward and the Despencers played it pretty well. They provoked rebellion, and picked off the rebels one by one.

The first was Bartholomew of Badlesmere. Isabella gave Edward a causus bellum when refused entry from Badlesmere's wife to Leeds Castle (brilliant place to visit, by the way). Edward moved to take Leeds, while Mortimer, Hereford and Badlesmere dithered, and Lancaster ordered them to leave Badlesmere to his fate – he hated Badlesmere. And so Leeds surrendered, and Edward strung them up.

Defeat in the Marches

Next up were Mortimer and Hereford. They had now retreated beyond the River Severn, looking to hold all the crossing's against the king. Still no help from Lancaster. But a lord called Gruffudd LLewyd in Wales remained loyal, and in their rear captured castles for the king. Mortimer threw in the towel, on the promise of the king's leniency – and then Edward chucked him in the Tower anyway. So Hereford fled north to join Lancaster.

Boroughbridge

Lancaster had found that the phrase 'King in the North' was just a phrase, not reality. He found it impossible to raise men against the king. He failed to realise that Edwrad would not just smile nicely, call him cousin and let him off. Lancaster's retainer Clifford eventually had to shake a sword in his face to get him to see sense – and Lancaster and Hereford fled north, heading for Dunstanburgh.

Sadly for them, Edward's Sherrif in Cumberland, Andrew Harclay held the bridge and ford at Boroughbridge. Lancaster attacked the ford, and Hereford the bridge. As Hereford laid about him, a spearman snuck underneath the bridge, and shoved his spear into Harclay's backside.

Lancaster called a truce to gather his energy overnight. In the morning he found that his army had melted away. Edward found him kneeling in a chapel.

Aftermath

The aftermath was a bloodbath. Lancaster was 'tried' – although he wasn't allowed to say anything in his defence – and beheaded. 6 more people were executed at the same time as Lancaster, and afterwards 117 families lost their lands.

The Declaration of Arbroath and a truce

In 1320 Bruce had issued the Declaration of Arbroath – a magnificent document well worth reading, and you can find it here or below. Edward had one more go at retrieving his reputation – taking north an army of over 20,000 men. He found a country empty of food, and was forced to retreat. Once again as he did so, the Scots re-appeared and fired the north of England. So at last Edward signed a truce – but no recognition yet of Bruce as a king.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/21/92-the-fall-of-lancaster/feed/491 The New Favouriteshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/07/91-the-new-favourites/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/07/91-the-new-favourites/#commentsSun, 07 Apr 2013 08:44:39 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/07/91-the-new-favourites/Read More]]>In the 1310's, Robert Bruce's ambitions grew – not simply content with throwing the English out of Scotland, or burning the north of England – he now wanted to establish his own Empire. And so his brother Edward was sent to invade Ireland, where he would face the king's friend – Roger Mortimer. Meanwhile in England Edward and Lancaster tried to work it out and live together in peace and harmony – and failed.

Edward Bruce landed in the north west of Ireland and tried to call on a sense of Irish-Scottish brotherhood.

Our people and your people, free since ancient times, share the same national ancestry and are urged to come together more eagerly and joyfully in friendship by a common language and by common custom.

Bruce initially carried all before him, defeating an army of the Irish allies of the English, and then defeating the English Earl of Ulster. The Scots went on the rampage heading toward Dublin. In their way was Mortimer's great fortress at Trim and at Kells the combined army of the de Lacy's and Mortimers. The ensuing battle was again a triumph for the Scots. The Lacys abandoned Mortimer during the battle and as far as Mortimer was concerned it was treachery. At Ardscull in 1316, the Scots again defeated the English, but in fact this was the high water mark. Bruce was left in a devastated countryside, but unable to take Dublin castle, and forced to retreat. Mortimer took his revenge on the Lacys.

The final defeat of Bruce came in 1318 at the hands of John de Bermingham at the battle of Faughart. His head is surgically removed and sent back to Edward II, and the dream of a Scottish Empire is dead for the moment.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/04/07/91-the-new-favourites/feed/290 How to hold a parliamenthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/03/31/90-how-to-hold-a-parliament/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/03/31/90-how-to-hold-a-parliament/#respondSun, 31 Mar 2013 09:04:25 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/03/31/90-how-to-hold-a-parliament/Read More]]>The modus tenendi parliamentum is a very unusual document from around this time. It describes how parliaments should be held, but also includes a number of very interesting claims about the primacy of the commons. It's interesting for the procedures and atmosphere around parliaments – as long as we take it with a pinch of salt. Also this week we hear and the political war with Lancaster, the physical war with the Scots and defeat at Bannockburn.

Edward's defeat at the hands of the Scots undid all the good work he'd achieved since the death of Gaveston. But if you want to hear about the battle itself, you aren't going to hear about it from me, no more than I'd do a blog on David Sole and his 5 Nations win against England all those years ago.

But I know a man who will – so go and visit Zack Twambley's When Diplomacy Fails podcast. There are lots of other goodies there as well.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/03/31/90-how-to-hold-a-parliament/feed/089 The Great Faminehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/03/24/89-the-great-famine/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/03/24/89-the-great-famine/#commentsSun, 24 Mar 2013 09:01:49 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/03/24/89-the-great-famine/Read More]]>For a long time we have been having a ball, economy wise – the medieval warm period, towns springing up all over the place, prices gently rising, population growing. So the Great Famine of 1315-1317 came as a terrible shock. Over 500-750,000 people died, as years of bad weather destroyed the feeling of economic well being. The question is whether or not this was a blip or part of a wider trend?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/03/24/89-the-great-famine/feed/188 Politics, Scandal, Intrigue and Turmoilhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/24/88/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/24/88/#commentsSun, 24 Feb 2013 11:51:49 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/24/88/Read More]]>The period between 1308 and 1311 was dominated by the attempts of the barons to resolve the issues left unsolved from Edward I's reign; and by the scandal and disruption caused by the king's favourite, Piers Gaveston. The conflict and turmoil led to another constitutional shuffle forward with the powers and role of parliament in the Ordinances of 1311.

The outrageous Piers Gaveston

How outraegous was Piers Gaveston? At one end of the spectrum is the view that Gaveston and Edward were in a homosexual love affair, Gaveston stole the queen's jewels and exported treasure from the kingdom; he controlled all access to the king and was insufferably arrogant.

The reality is probably rather less dramatic. It's really impossible to know if Edward and Gaveston were lovers in a physical sense – what's clear is that they loved each other, and Edward idolised Gaveston.

The stuff about stealing the queens jewels and exporting treasure from the kingdom is probably not true – the chroniclers vie with each other to do the guy down. But there's little doubt the guy was guilty of hideous arrogance. Here's a quote:

He adopted such a proud manner of bearing towards them that the Earls coming before him to discuss business were forced to kneel in order to bring their reasons before him because he did not value them and did not heed the advice of the sage who said A sudden reverse awaits those who, raised high in pride from poverty know neither reason nor measure and have no care

Gaveston had to go becuase he upset the system of patronage and access to the king on which medieval politics relied.

Here's a quote from the Annales Paulini that Hannah Kilpatrick emailed me, with some comments from Hannah also on the langauge used.

… In an excess of love, the king called Piers his brother; the common people, however, called him the king's idol ("regis ydolum"), whose displeasure the king feared as that of a father, and whom he sought to please as one would a master [awkward idiom, but that's the sense of it]. The king gave to this Piers the bestowal on his subjects of many kinds of favours/graces [gratia], which by royal prerogative belonged to the king himself alone and ought not descend to others. For example, if any one of the earls or magnates would request any particular grace [gratiam] of the king regarding the proceedings of any business [aliquo negotio expediendo], the king would send him to Piers; and anything that Piers said or instructed would soon be enacted, and the king would allow it [acceptaret, which is a beautifully passive verb that you could almost justify as translating 'would submit to it'].

[And just in case we've missed why this corruption of the less physical royal coinage is a bad thing:]

And so all the people [populus universus] were resentful [indignatus, which is this chronicler's favourite adjective for this period], seeing two kings reign in one realm, both in word and in action.

The Coronation Oath

The Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Winchelsea was still in France, since he was ill and had been in dispute with Edward I and the Pope. So the oath was administered by the Bishop of Winchester, assisted by the Bishops of Chichester and Salisbury.

By and large the oath is pretty standard – preserving the laws and customs, the church and administering justice. The rather radical thing was the phrase in bold below – ‘the just laws and customs that the community of your realm shall determine’. Now that’s very new, and sounds like something of a hostage to fortune.

The phrase derives from the Boulogne Declaration by a group of magnates and church leaders that they were loyal to the crown as much as the monarch – itself a new idea. Essentially, the barons wanted no repeat of Edward I’s reign where the king broke promises he had made to reform; and there were already signs that Edward II was not to be trusted.

Sire, will you grant and keep and by your oath confirm to the people of England the laws and customs given to them by the previous just and god-fearing kings, your ancestors, and especially the laws, customs, and liberties granted to the clergy and people by the glorious king, the sainted Edward, your predecessor?

I grant and promise them.

Sire, will you in all your judgments, so far as in you lies, preserve to God and Holy Church, and to the people and clergy, entire peace and concord before God ?"

I will preserve them.

Sire, will you, so far as in you lies, cause justice to be rendered rightly, impartially, and wisely, in compassion and in truth?

I will do so.

Sire, do you grant to be held and observed the just laws andcustoms that the community of your realm shall determine, and will you, so far as in you lies, defend and strengthen them to the honour of God?

I grant and promise them.

The Ordinances, 1311

The Ordinances were an attempt by the Barons to both resolve the problems and differences they had had with Edward I and which had continued into the new reign, and put an end to the crisis caused by Edward II’s reckless favouritism towards Piers Gaveston.

It has been described as ‘oligarchical’; the phrase ‘community of the realm’ doesn’t appear, the ordinances stress the role of the baronage in parliament. In fact, it’s doubtful that the barons had any intention of removing the powers and rights of knights and towns; more that they were simply not present at the parliament where the barons forced acceptance on Edward.

The ordinances have a number of groups of issues they try to address:

Exactions of the king – the vexed questions of impositions such as prise and purveyance

Control of royal officials – such as forest officials, household officers

Legal reform – such as trying to stop malicious accusations

Specific individuals – the ‘evil counsellors’ the barons didn’t like

In the end, the ordinances started a period of conflict – between Thomas, Earl of Lancaster and his supporters, and the king, rather than bringing one to an end. But despite the fact that there are few innovations in the Ordinances, most clauses hark back to the Articles on the Charters of Edward I’s reign, there are significant changes. Never before had the king been required to answer to parliament so comprehensively – such as appointing his officials, or leaving the country, or changing the currency.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/24/88/feed/387 Scandal was brought upon the Kingdomhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/17/87-scandal-was-brought-upon-the-kingdom/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/17/87-scandal-was-brought-upon-the-kingdom/#commentsSun, 17 Feb 2013 08:52:14 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/17/87-scandal-was-brought-upon-the-kingdom/Read More]]>This week, and introduction to Edward II, quite probably the most reviled king in English history. So this week he have a bit of a survey of how history has treated the lad, and the chroniclers that have given him his reputation. And then we kick of the reign.

This extract from the contemporary chronicler has formed the basis of opinion for many other contemporaries. I've taken it from Seymour Phillip's book 'Edward II'.

King Edward was a man handsome in body and of outstanding strength, but, if common opinion is to be believed, most inconsistent in behaviour. For shunning the company of the nobles, to sought the society of jesters, singers, actors, carriage drivers, diggers, oarsmen, sailors and the practitioners of other kinds of mechanical arts. He indulged in drink, betrayed confidences lightly, struck out at those standing near him for little reason and followed the counsel of others rather than his own. He was extravagant in his gifts, splendid in entertainment, ready in speech but inconsistent in action. He was unlucky against his enemies, violent with members of his own household, and ardently attached to one of his familiars, whom he sustained above all, enriched, preferred and honoured. From this obsession opprobrium came upon the lover and obloquy to the loved one; scandal was brought upon the people, and the kingdom was damaged. He also promoted unworthy and incapable men to office in the church, a practice which was to be a beam in his eyes and a lance in his side. In his days there was also to be a dearth of grain and constant mortality among farm animals, such as had scarcely been seen before.

Then there's a quite amazing blog, Edward II by Kathryn Warner. Slightly chippy it must be said, but brilliantly written, incredibly comprehensive and easy to find whatever information you want. The best history blog I have come across by some distance.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/17/87-scandal-was-brought-upon-the-kingdom/feed/586 Handing overhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/10/86-handing-over/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/10/86-handing-over/#respondSun, 10 Feb 2013 08:55:39 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/10/86-handing-over/Read More]]>In 1305 two Scottish lords had a fall out next to the altar of a church in Dumfries. One them, Robert Bruce, resolved the argument by sticking a knife in the other, John the Red Comyn. Robert then raised the standard of rebellion and with the support of Robert Wishart, and the Scottish war was back on. Two years later, campaigning in Scotland, Edward finally reached the end of his death. Hate him or loathe him, Edward can at least say that no-one could ignore him. And there is something relentless about his tomb and inscription that sums up the man.

The tomb of Edward I is really rather remarkable edifice. It is surrounded in Westminster Abbey by gorgeous gilt tombs and shrines; the Shrine of Edward the Confessor for example is a gilded monstrosity, nearby Henry III's tomb is less grand but certainly covered in gilt. Edward I gets an almost unmarked black granite block, with no effigy. It has been said that the reason was that the feckless Edward II couldn't be bothered to tart it up, but that's very doubtful. And when you look at it, perched high above the ambulatory, it's somehow entirely appropriate. Here lay a man of substance, an implacable opponent.

All of which is reinforced by the inscription:

Edwardus Primus Scottorum Malleus hic est, 1308. Pactum Serva

Here lies Edward Ist, hammer of the Scots. Keep the faith.

Now the inscription you see was actually put onto the tomb in the 16th century but it's entirely possible it reflected an inscription of the time. Here was edward grimly telling his folk to remember the feast of swans, and their vow to avenge the death of John Comyn.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/10/86-handing-over/feed/085 Crime and Punishmenthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/03/85-crime-and-punishment/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/03/85-crime-and-punishment/#commentsSun, 03 Feb 2013 12:14:11 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/03/85-crime-and-punishment/Read More]]>A digression this week – the state of the crime and punishment in 14th century, and the story of the theft of the crown jewels in 1303. We also get the final and rather gruesome end of William Wallace in 1305.

The Statute of Winchester was one attempt by Edward to control the rising tide of crime; in fact war and the focus of the king on Wales, France and Scotland meant that the crime wave continued. But it gives an interesting insight.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/02/03/85-crime-and-punishment/feed/884 War, Tournaments and Victoryhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/20/84-war-tournaments-and-victory/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/20/84-war-tournaments-and-victory/#commentsSun, 20 Jan 2013 09:06:12 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/20/84-war-tournaments-and-victory/Read More]]>We spend a bit of time in this episode having a bit of a catchup up – about arms, armour and armies, and about warfare for real and for pretend. Despite that we also find time to talk about the seeming final surrender of the Scots in 1305 - so how about that for value then?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/20/84-war-tournaments-and-victory/feed/283 Crisishttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/13/83-crisis/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/13/83-crisis/#commentsSun, 13 Jan 2013 08:58:18 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/13/83-crisis/Read More]]>From 1297, things became harder for Edward. The relentless pressure of external wars led to increased taxation. This continuous pressure on the magnates, church and people eventually led to a resistance. Edward's personality didn't help; up to now, he had carried everything before him – now, suddenly, he's faced with the concept of compromise. Meanwhile in the north it's come-uppance time for Wallace at the battle of Falkirk.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/13/83-crisis/feed/282 The Sucker Punchhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/06/82-the-sucker-punch/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/06/82-the-sucker-punch/#commentsSun, 06 Jan 2013 08:50:27 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/06/82-the-sucker-punch/Read More]]>Since the Treaty of Paris in 1259, England and France had been friends, united by a monarchy with close ties and relationships. So when in 1293 a dispute blew up over a sea fight in the Channel, Edward clearly didn't expect it to become a problem. But in fact Phillip IV (the Fair) of France was keen to strengthen the power of the French monarchy – and that didn't include having Gascony controlled by a foreign king.

Edward sent his brother Edmund of Lancaster to negotiate with Phillip. Together it sounded as thought they'd stitched up a nice face-saving deal. Publicly, Phillip would confiscate Gascony from his vassal, Edward Duke of Gascony, to keep his nobles happy and his brother Charles of Valois. But then he'd invite Edward to Amiens, where he'd hand them back again on favourable terms.

Edward spent no time discussing any of this with his magnates; as far as he was concerned, Phillip was family and Edmund was of course his brother. So what could go wrong? Duly in 1294, Gascony and almost all its towns where handed over in 1294.

To Edward's horror there was no invitation to Amiens – Gascony was confiscated, and stayed confiscated. With only Bourge, Blaye and Bayonne left in English hands, Edward had been suckered out of his French possessions and would have to win them back.

The Cinque Ports

The cinque ports, and their delightfully medieval character, are a constant companion through English history. There's a great map and article at Wikipedia here

Scotland and 1296

John Balliol has gone down in history as a weak king, but there's no doubt he was in a hideous position. In 1294 Edward demanded he hand over 3 castles. In 1296, Balliol refused, and made alliance with the French.

In response, Edward invaded with an army of 5,000 cavalry and 30,000 foot. His campaign was almost entirely successful – Berwick fell in March, and in April John of Warenne, Earl of Surrey, defeated the Scots at Dunbar.

By August, Balliol had been stripped of his royal rank by Edward and imprisoned in the Tower of London, and Edward had established direct rule.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2013/01/06/82-the-sucker-punch/feed/281 The Great Causehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/12/23/81-the-great-cause/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/12/23/81-the-great-cause/#commentsSun, 23 Dec 2012 09:17:18 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/12/23/81-the-great-cause/Read More]]>Through a stunning piece of bad luck, Alexander III left no heirs. And now there was no clear successor to his throne of Scotland. For the search for the right successor, the Scottish Guardians of the Realm turned to Scotland's friend – England. But Edward had other plans – for him this was a great opportunity to revive the claims of the kings of England to be overlords of all Britain.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/12/23/81-the-great-cause/feed/480 In which we Dawdlehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/12/09/80-in-which-we-dawdle/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/12/09/80-in-which-we-dawdle/#commentsSun, 09 Dec 2012 09:14:57 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/12/09/80-in-which-we-dawdle/Read More]]>When Edward I arrived back in 1289 from Gascony, he was in many ways at the height of his awesomeness. A chivalric monarch, a leading statesman in Christendom, and at least partly responsible for legal reforms, that will cause a historian to call him 'the English Justinian'. But he also had problems. He was strapped for cash. There was a background of discontent against the firmness of Edward's rule. But Edward was a clever politician as well as a chivalric monarch, and knew how to negotiate his way back to popularity – and it would not be good news for England's Jewish community.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/12/09/80-in-which-we-dawdle/feed/679 Conqueror and Statesmanhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/25/79-conqueror-and-statesman/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/25/79-conqueror-and-statesman/#commentsSun, 25 Nov 2012 09:27:14 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/25/79-conqueror-and-statesman/Read More]]>The second Anglo Welsh war was very different in character to the first. Here was a genuinely national uprising against rule by the English. Here was a war with no compromise – where Edward clearly decided from the start that the only long term issue was complete conquest.

Edward's second Anglo Welsh War – Conquest

Why?

Between 1277 and 1282, the Welsh had their defeat rubbed firmly in their faces. The new towns set up in the shadow of the new English castles at places like Flint and Rhuddlan excluded the Welsh from trade. The administrators were English and made few concessions to Welsh law and nationhood. And then, there were personal grievances; Daffyd in particular had wanted to become the Prince of Gwynedd at least, not just to be given 2 cantrefs.

It starts…

In 1282, Daffyd and his allies launched a series of surprise attacks at Hawarden, Aberystwyth, Flint and Rhuddlan. The English towns burnt. This presented Llewellyn with a problem – did he join or stay aloof? Afterall, given the experience of 1277 surely the revolt was doomed from the start. He dithers. But then in June, his wife bore him a daughter, not a son to carry on his line; and then Eleanor died as well. Llewellyn decided he had nothing to lose, and threw his lot in with his brother.

The war

Edward's attack followed the previous model – 3 separate attacks, south west, East and north. The Welsh had some early success – de Clare was defeated in the south, William de Valence held up at Aberystwyth.

But in the north, Edward's advance was relentless, including building a bridge of boats across the Menai straits to Angelsey. Holed up in Snowdonia, Llewellyn tried to break out with an attack in central Wales – only to be killed in the resulting battle, have his head hacked off, crowned with Ivy and nailed to the Tower of London.

Daffyd was now Prince of Wales, but the winter of 1282-3 gave him no relief as he expected – uniquely, Edward kept the fight going. Daffyd was chased from stronghold to stronghold until at last his own countrymen handed him over to Edward.

A new brutality in political life

In October 1283 Daffyd was accused of Treason. It's not that Treason was unknown – but it had never been used for this kind of rebellion, and never for the high born. Here's how the chronicler described a hideous death:

Daffyd…was captured by the king’s men together with his wife, two sons and 7 daughters and was tried subsequently by the magnates of England. He was a fomenter of evil, a most vicious tormenter of the English and deceiver of his own race, and ungrateful traitor and a warmonger.

The death of a traitor is indeed shameful! Daffyd was dragged at a horses tail through the streets of Shrewsbury, then hanged and finally decapitated. Afterwards his body was hacked into 4 portions, his heart and intestines were burned and his head was taken to London to be displayed at a stake on the Tower next to his brother’s head. The 4 quarters of his headless corpse were despatched to Bristol, Northampton, York and Winchester

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/25/79-conqueror-and-statesman/feed/478 The Crisis in Waleshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/18/78-the-crisis-in-wales/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/18/78-the-crisis-in-wales/#respondSun, 18 Nov 2012 08:12:07 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/18/78-the-crisis-in-wales/Read More]]>In 1270, you would have been more likely to pick Alexander, king of Scotland or Llewellyn of Wales as the leader most likely to breach the peace. Edward looked more like a candidate for a peace prize. And, Wales was more united than ever; at the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267 Llewellyn had been confirmed as Prince of Wales. So the events of 1277 was something of a surprise.

A bit of background – Welsh Poets and Welsh Castles

Let me recommend some other sites to look at. First of all, I managed to stumble on some Welsh medieval court poetry during the writing of this podcast. Now, I now how dire that sounds but believe me it was actually rather compelling. So here's a link to a couple of samples I've put on my documents blog.

Then, if you like castles, Wales is the place to go. There are a couple of really good sites to get the low down, one of them dripping with good 'ole Welsh patriotism. First there's Castles of Wales, and then there's Castles of Britain.

Rhys ap Maredudd (1250-1292) – lord of Cantref Mawr, the remnants of the southern Welsh kingdom of Deheubarth. Didn't get on with Llewellyn, one of the first to submit to Edward, and rewarded to some degree. But not enough, and will be in revolt by 1287.

Seeds of disaster: the treaty of Montgomery, 1267

In most ways, the treaty was a complete triumph for Llewellyn. It confirmed the conquests he'd made from the English, and made him Prince of Wales. BUT there are two kickers:

He had to pay 25,000 marks plus a further 5,000 marks for the homage of Rhys ap Maredudd. This was not going to be easy

The definition of many parts of his new territories was very poorly defined, leaving them subject to dispute and challenge from the disgruntled English marcher lords.

Below is a brilliant map from Wikipedia, which shows the lay of the land after the Treaty of Montgomery.

The journey to conflict

Right up to the eve of the conflict, Llewellyn and Edward seemed to have a good relationship. Llewellyn's beef was with the marcher lords – Gilbert de Clare (Earl of Gloucester), Humphrey de Bohun (Earl of Hereford), and Roger Mortimer – who were trying to nibble away at this territory.

In 1273, while Edward was still away, the Regency left to govern in his place rattled Llewellyn's cage. They demanded he come and pay homage to Edward in absentia – Llewellyn refused.

Then The Regency ruled that Humphrey de Bohun was quite entitles to consider the castles in Brecon not to be covered by the treaty which clearly gave Brecon to Llewellyn.

And meanwhile, Llewellyn could no longer keep up his payments under the Treaty of Montgomery.

Despite all of this, Edward was still relaxed and sure that things would still be fine. But unfortunately Llewellyn was beginning to believe his own publicity. And we would stop pushing it, well beyond the point where he was ever going to win. There were two big snubs:

Snub No. 1: Llewellyn is invited to Edward's wedding. He turns it down.

Snub No. 2: Edward stretches a point and comes up to Chester to make it easy for Llewellyn to pay him homage. Llewellyn doesn't turn up, and Edward returns in a rage to London. Now it's war.

The first Welsh war: 1277

Really, it wasn't much of a contest. There is nothing particularly innovative about the way Edward fought his Welsh wars – except that his logistics were meticulous, and by thorough organisation he overwhelmed Llewellyn.

As the map below shows, there were three lines of attack into Wales, and by November Llewellyn had submitted.

The Treaty of Aberconwy, 1277

Llewellyn's defeat was confirmed at the Treaty of Aberconwy. Below is the excellent map from Wikipedia which shows how Llewellyn is now pinned back into Gwynedd.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/18/78-the-crisis-in-wales/feed/077 Reconstructionhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/11/77-reconstruction/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/11/77-reconstruction/#commentsSun, 11 Nov 2012 09:28:12 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/11/77-reconstruction/Read More]]>The country Edward came back to in 1274 wasn't in particularly good nick. Crime was on the rise, with a general disaffection with the regime as the benzedrine of de Montfort's years continued to race through the nation's veins. The magnates were used to ignoring Henry and his royal officials. There was no money in the treasury. With the help of Robert Burnell and his close circle of magnates, in the first few years of his realm Edward re-established a good degree of firm government, financial stability - and built a shared esprit de corps between him and his court.

Finances

Royal revenue had hit rock bottom; £25,000 a year, which is the same level as Henry I had achieved. Except that inflation since then had been something like 300%, so Henry really had the equivalent of £75,00. Edward restored his finances through:

Customs dues: From 1275, merchants had to pay 3% on their exports of Wool. So that's £10,000 a year

Taxation: Parliament agreed to a tax of 1/15th – which raised £80,000

The Riccardi of Lucca: up to 1290, the Riccardi were the paymasters of the crown. In return for loans to order, they managed the collection of customs dues through the exchequer. It's a deal that gave Edward complete independence in normal years.

Meanness – no more patronage and giving away of crown lands – and a lot of taking back where he could!

Edward also came up with a few feudal dues, like distraint of knighthood. But his reign is the first sign that really, feudal dues were no longer sufficient for an English king.

Reform and Community

Edward's biggest triumph was to re-establish a partnership between the crown and his people. He was a model of the medieval king – physically imposing, a wow at tournaments (before he became king!), pious without being grovelling about it (he abandoned work on Westminster Abbey for example). He used the legend of Arthur to bind his magnates together with him, to the extent of creating his own Round Table – now in Winchester Hall.

More importantly he worked within the law, by and large. He worked with Parliament, regularly calling parliaments which he genuinely worked with. He was genuine about delivering better government; so he replaced corrrupt sheriffs, he encouraged petitions of grievances through parliament and did something about them. And he instituted changes in new laws, such as the Statute of Westminster 1275.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/11/11/77-reconstruction/feed/576 The Personal Rule of Henry III Part 2https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/28/76-the-personal-rule-of-henry-iii-part-2/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/28/76-the-personal-rule-of-henry-iii-part-2/#commentsSun, 28 Oct 2012 08:44:32 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/28/76-the-personal-rule-of-henry-iii-part-2/Read More]]>The last 5 years of Henry's rule were pretty uneventful. The Statute of Marlborough confirmed the changes of the Provisions of Westminster, but royal power remained based on the pre-Provisions of Oxford basis. Edward whiled away his time by going on crusade, returning in August 1274 for his coronation.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/28/76-the-personal-rule-of-henry-iii-part-2/feed/475 Nemesishttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/21/75-nemesis/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/21/75-nemesis/#commentsSun, 21 Oct 2012 09:06:47 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/21/75-nemesis/Read More]]>In April 1265 Gilbert de Clare had left court in something of a huff. De Montfort was well aware that if he lost de Clare, his whole hold on power would be threatened.

The Evesham Campaign

Below is a map of Wales and the Welsh Marches, actually slightly after the de Montfort campaign. The names of major landholders are in Capital letters, so that you can see where the Mortimer and de Clare lands lay.

In April 1265, Gilbert de Clare left court for the Marches; and de Montfort realised this was trouble. de Clare was the only major magnate supporting the cause, and without him support for de Montfort's rule was dangerously lacking magnate support. At first things looked OK – de Clare agreed to arbitration. But in fact, he was already in communication with the Royalists. and William de Valence had already landed at Pembroke, looking to march to Wigmore and join with Mortimer.

De Montfort moved to Hereford to block that move, but then the whole situation changed. Edward escaped on 28th May. Edward had set out with his knightly minders with the express intention of testing the horses. He then proceeded to ride each horse to exhaustion, before giving it back to the relevant knight and trying the next one. Eventually, he came to the last horse, hopped on it and headed for the hills. All his captors' horses were tired of course, and so they had no hope of catching him.

At Wigmore, Edward, Mortimer and de Clare met and hammered out a deal, and then quickly moved to cut the bridges over the River Severn. De Montfort sent for his son Simon to meet him with the main army, but by 29th June the last brudge over the Severn at Gloucester had been captured, and de Montfort was cut off in Hereford with only his household knights and some Welsh mercenaries.

But finally by 32st July, Simon Junior had reached Kenilworth, drawing Edward away from Worcester. in a Lightening march, Edward caught Simon Junior outside Kenilworth, and gave his army a mauling but if the de Montfort's could combine they would still have a chance. With Edward at Kenilworth, de Montfort was able to cross the Severn and march towards his son.

The Battle of Evesham

On 4th August 1265, Simon de Montfort was finally trapped at Evesham, heavily outnumbered while trying to combine his army with that of his son, Simon. As he watched Edward's army approach, he said 'May God have mercy on our souls for our bodies are theirs.'

Edward organised a death squad to hunt de Montfort down – not to capture him as would normally be the case, but to kill him. In fact, Henry de Montfort was the first to die, and when he was told his father said 'Then it is time to die'. 30 knights were killed in the battle, an unprecedented number – normally they would have been held for ransom. de Montfort himself was run through the neck by Roger Mortimer with a lance. His body was dismembered – the head cut off, and the testicles stuffed into it's mouth. Kindly, Mortimer sent the head in a box to his wide – a lovely thought.

The aftermath

It took over 2 years for the rebellion to be finally repressed. Because Henry was determined to getrevenge – and so normal rules were suspended. After the rebellions of Henry II and John, barons had been fined, then allowed to resume their lands and get on it. But in September 1266, Henry declared that none of the rebels would be allowed to resume their lands – and the result was chaos. Kenilworth itself held out for 6 months, until eventually forced to surrender. In the end Henry, helped by Ottobueno and Richard of Cornwall, arranged a better deal whereby the Disinherited could take back their estates before they paid their fine – and finally a workable solutions had been found.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/21/75-nemesis/feed/1074 The Wheel of Fortunehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/14/74-the-wheel-of-fortune/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/14/74-the-wheel-of-fortune/#commentsSun, 14 Oct 2012 08:54:37 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/14/74-the-wheel-of-fortune/Read More]]> In 1264 when De Montfort set out from London he would have been conscious that this was a last throw; after losses to the Royalists in the midlands his only chance was a decisive victory. Lewes gave him that victory, and opened a remarkable period in England's history, a period of constitutional monarchy.

The Battle of Lewes, May 1264

De Montfort led an army that was considerable smaller than the King. Estimates vary wildly, but lets go for 10,000 on the Royalist side and 5,000 with de Montfort. In addition, de Montfort had far fewer cavalry – though in the end given the terrain and the activities of Edward, maybe that wasn't such a bad thing.

The map below by David Carpenter gives a good idea of the events of the day; you can also find out more at the Sussex Archaeological Society website.

Below is the account of the battle of Lewes by the reliable chronicler William of Rishanger:

Earl Simon passed that night without sleep, giving time, as was his habit, to divine offices and prayers and exhorting his men to make sincere confessions. Walter de Cantilupe, Bishop of Worcester, absolved them all, and commanded that for the remission of their sins they should manfully strive for justice on that day, promising to all who should die thus the entry into the heavenly kingdom.

Battle being therefore certain, at daybreak before the rising of the sun, they went out from the village of Fletching, where a great part of them had spent the night, and which was about ten miles from Lewes. Before the start earl Simon de Montfort girt Gilbert de Clare with a knight's sword.

When they had marched near the town of Lewes and were hardly two miles distant from it, Simon with his men ascended a hill and placed his chariot there in the middle of his baggage, and having purposely placed and firmly erected his standard upon it, he encircled it with many armed men. Then with his own forces he held the ground on either side and awaited the issue of events. In the chariot he set four London citizens, who a little before, when he passed the night in Southwark, had conspired to betray him. This he did as a warning.

When he had thus prudently arrayed his forces, he ordered white crosses to be sewn on their backs and breasts over their armour, so that they should be distinguished from their enemies, and to indicate that they were fighting for justice. At dawn the baronial army suddenly attacked the king's guards who had gone out to seek for food or fodder and killed many of them.

When the king therefore was sure of the coming of the barons, he soon advanced with his men, with his standards unfurled and preceded by the royal banner, portending the judgment of death, which they call the 'Dragon'. His army was divided into three parts: the first line was commanded by Edward, the king's eldest son, together with William de Valance, earl of Pembroke, and John de Warenne, earl of Surrey and Sussex; the second by the king of Germany with his son Henry; and the third by king Henry himself. The baronial forces were divided into four, of which the first line was given to Henry de Montfort, the second to Gilbert de Clare together with John FitzJohn, and William of Montchensy; in the third were the Londoners under Nicholas Segrave; while the earl himself with Thomas of Pelveston led the fourth.

Then Edward with his line rushed on his enemies with such violence that he compelled them to retreat, and many of them, to the number of sixty knights, it is said, were overwhelmed. Soon the Londoners were routed, for Edward thirsted for their blood because they had insulted his mother, and he chased them for four miles, slaughtering them most grievously. But through his absence the strength of the royalists was considerably diminished.

Meanwhile many of the mighty men of the royal army, seeing the earl's standard on the hill and thinking he was there, made their way thither and unexpectedly slew those London citizens, for they did not know that they were on their own side. In the meantime the earl and Gilbert de Clare were by no means inactive, for they smote, threw down and killed those who opposed them, endeavouring with the utmost eagerness to take the king alive. Therefore many of the king's supporters rushed together – John earl of Warenne, William de Valance, Guy de Lusignan, all the king's half brothers, Hugh Bigod and about three hundred warriors – and seeing the fierceness of the barons, fled. There were captured Richard, the king of Germany, Robert Bruce and John Comyn, who had led the Scots thither. Also King Henry had his horse wounded under him, and giving himself up to earl Simon was soon brought under guard to the priory.

There were killed on that day many Scottish barons, and a great number of the foot soldiers who came with them had their throats cut. Meanwhile Humphrey de Bohun earl of Hereford, John FitzAlan earl of Arundel, William Bardolf, Robert de Tateshale, Roger de Somery, Henry Percy and Philip Basset were taken prisoner.

But on the king's side there fell the justiciar, William of Wilton and Fulk FitzWarin, the one slain by a sword, the other drowned in the river. On the barons' side fell Ralph Haringod, baron, and William Blund the earl's standard bearer. On both sides five thousand are said to have fallen.

When Edward and those fighting with him returned from the slaughter of the Londoners, not knowing what had happened to his father, he went round the town and came to Lewes castle. When he did not find his father there, he went to Lewes priory, where he found his father and learned what had happened. Meanwhile the barons made an assault on the castle, but as those shut up in it defended themselves manfully, the barons withdrew. When Edward saw their boldness within the castle, he was greatly inspirited, and collecting his men again, he wished to continue the battle afresh. Discovering this, the barons sent arbitrators of peace, promising that they wished to treat for an effectual peace the next day.

Richard the Trichard and the song of Lewes

Here, rarely, is the voice of ordinary people, mocking the King of the Romans, Richard of Cornwall as he hid in his windmill after the battle.

The Mise of Lewes

By the end of the battle, Simon was victorious and the agreement called the Mise of Lewes transferred the King and Prince Edward from the Priory at Lewes to imprisonment with de Montfort. It also committed de Montfort to arbitration to find an acceptable alternative to the Provisions of Oxford.

The English Bishops and the failure of arbitration

Louis IXth though was not playing ball. The English Bishops tried their best, crossing to France to try to negotiate. There, the Papal Legate Ottobueno did his best to browbeat them into abandoning de Montfort, but to no avail. Incredulous and exasperated, the Legate asked them a straight question, to which he would have got the answer 'no' in every other European country - Did the bishops agree with the barons that the king of England should be compelled to accept specified councillors and strictly to follow their counsel? The bishops looked him in the eye and said 'yes'. The result was excommunication and interdict for de Montfort and de Clare. The men of Kent showed their attitude – when the bishops arrived with the papal bulls, they tore them into pieces and threw them into the sea.

The 'pride and arrogance of Lucifer'

The short period of rule by de Montfort was too troubled to give much chance for reform; though true to the Provisions, De Montfort called parliament regularly, including the first parliament where burgesses were called to represent the towns; and he appointed sheriffs according to the provisions.

But on the other hand, de Montfort and his family ruthlessly and systematically built their wealth and land, so much so that at tournaments the de Montfort boys were ‘abounding in money and with and with an innumerable company of paid knights’.

Trouble

The result was to drive de Clare from the baronial camp, disillusioned at the growth in de Montfort's power and the eclipse of his own., By April 1265 he had left court and gone to this estates in the Welsh marches, where de Montfort was forced to follow to try to repair the fences.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/14/74-the-wheel-of-fortune/feed/473 Return of the Jedihttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/07/73-return-of-the-jedi/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/07/73-return-of-the-jedi/#commentsSun, 07 Oct 2012 08:42:57 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/07/73-return-of-the-jedi/Read More]]>In 1262, it looked for all the world as though the royal party was back in control and the whole struggle for reform was over. But that was before you take into account the ability of Henry, Eleanor and their son to get up the collective English nose. So de Montfort was able to return and once again the battle was on. This time though, the royal party fought back right away, and won a string of victories. By March 1264, De Montfort was drinking at the last chance saloon.

Stirring up rebellion

In 1262, Henry and Eleanor should by rights have been able to finish any question of revolt. But instead their misrule continued, and each passing day re-affirmed that teh Provisions of Westminster had been lost, with the return of the Lusignan, and the restart of Eyres of Justices designed to raise money for the crown. But the really foolish move was to irritate the de Clare's; when Richard died, Henry and Eleanor refused to confirm the accession of his son the Red Earl, Gilbert de Clare, and tried to cripple Gilbert with the size of his mother's dower.

Henry finally cottoned up and confirmed the provisions of Oxford – but it was too late. In April 1263 a group of marcher lords asked de Montfort to return, and duly he returned.

1263-1264: Struggle for power

At first de Montfort carried all before him. He was well supported by magnates such as John de Warenne, Gilbert de Clare and even Richard of Cornwall. London declared for the rebels, and Eleanor and Henry were forced to retreat to the Tower.

Edward was not prepared to take this lying down. He and a group of his knights broke into the Temple Church and stole £1,000 worth of jewels and coin. While this heightened London's support for de Montfort, it allowed Edward to escape the city and raise the royal standard at Windsor. Queen Eleanor tried to join him, by sailing down the Thames on her barge – but much to her fury and that of Henry and Edward the Londoners on the bridge drove her back with mud, rotten vegetables and insults. Sadly, Edward and Eleanor were just the type to bear a grudge, and would never really forgive London the insult to the royal dignity.

1264: The Mise of Amiens and power swings to the Royalists

Early in 1264, Louis IXth was asked to arbitrate between the barons and king.

The result was acomplete whitewash, and the complete rejection of the baronial claims. The ware then seemed to go from bad to worse for the Barons – with one exception – Gilbert de Clare's declaration for de Montfort. despite this, Henry was everywhere victorious, taking Northampton (and capturing Simon de Montfort Junior), Leicester and Nottingham before heading to the south coast.

In May 1264 de Montfort set out with his numerically inferior army to risk it all on one last throw of the dice.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/10/07/73-return-of-the-jedi/feed/972 The Empire Strikes Backhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/23/72-the-empire-strikes-back/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/23/72-the-empire-strikes-back/#commentsSun, 23 Sep 2012 09:13:06 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/23/72-the-empire-strikes-back/Read More]]> Things looked pretty good for the reformers in 1259; but at the heart of the reform movement were fault lines that weakened them, and made them vulnerable. The differing aims of the magnates; the avarice of de Montfort; and the fact that would plague the civil war 400 years later – how ever many times they defeated the king, he would still be the king. And in 1261, the royal fight back began

When at last de Montfort was out manoeuvred into giving Eleanor's quitclaim, the treaty was signed that finally put the seal on the end of the Angevin Empire. Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Touraine, Poitou – Henry formally renounced his claim to all of them. In return, he was given Gascony, and the rights to some further bits of land not yet in his possession – the Agenais, the Saintonge. Some commentators thought Henry a prune to have agreed to this – Eleanor had held Gascony as of right, not from the king of France. But in fact, Henry for once was probably right. It was a running sore – an agreement needed to be reached, otherwise there would simply be constant war, which the English were unlikely to win. And in fact although it taes a long time of course, a war which the English were indeed eventually to lose.

The Provisions of Westminster

If the Provisions of Oxford were a constitutional revolution, the Provisions of Westminster were the embodiment of that revolution in legislation. Why, I hear you ask, do we get so excited by these things? Well, there are a few points.

First of all, this is only the second example we have of specific legislation being introduced to modify the behaviour of the king and his instruments, the Sherrifs and Justices in Eyre. It goes further than Magna Carta in this respect.

Secondly, Magna Carta is really a peace treaty between the king and his magnates. The Provisions of Westminster concerned the malpractices of the barons every bit as much as of the king. This is radical. It also reflected the changing make up of England – local knights and towns were now too important and influential to be represented by the magnates.

If you add the extraordinary restriction of the king's powers brought through the Provisions of Oxford, you have a constitutional change unmatched anywhere in Europe.

For those super-keenies, here is the text of the Provisions of Westminster.

The Empire Strikes Back

In 1260, Henry and Eleanor started a series of challenges to the Baronial Council which meant that by the end of 1261 they were back in control. At one stage, Simon de Montfort was put on trial by the king, and only saved by an invasion from Llewellyn ap Gruffudd which distracted Henry at the crucial time – or maybe saved him from the embarassment of an acquittal. Prince Edward returned to the royal fold, reconciled to the king and Queen – though having to abandon his marcher friends in the process, much to their resentment. Eventually, in October 1261 after having many times sworn to uphold the Provisions of Oxford, Henry produced a Papal bull of absolution from his oaths, and repudiated the provisions. This of course should have been the time when the magnates stood up to be counted – but they failed, the air knocked out of them by the defection of Richard de Clare, the Earl of Gloucester. Only Simon de Montfort stood firm – making off to France rather than be forced to take part in a government that now was not regulated by the provisions.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/23/72-the-empire-strikes-back/feed/171 Enter the Leopardhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/16/71-enter-the-leopard/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/16/71-enter-the-leopard/#commentsSun, 16 Sep 2012 09:14:23 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/16/71-enter-the-leopard/Read More]]>We sort of get back to the political narrative this week, but only sort of. We discuss the young prince, Edward, who will be one of England's most famous kings at some point and is already an important political player, and we bring ourselves back up to date with the relevance of the provisions of Oxford

Edward I and the Factions of 1258-1263

Edward was born in 1239 and like any king in waiting immediately became the focus of court factions. In his case, his formidable mother Eleanor of Provence and her Savoyard cousins, particularly Peter of Savoy, made sure they were in control of the key posts around him.

As an adult, Edward would be 6' 2" – we know that because his body was exhumed and measured in the 18th Century. And he had the ambition to match; as a 14 year old, he was already lord of Gascony, and already suffering the first rebellion against his rule. But it was his father who went to suppress the rebellion leaving his son behind. Edward was not happy, as Matthew Paris records:

'The boy stood crying and sobbing on the shore, and would not depart as long as he could see the swelling sails of the ships’

By 1258, Edward was doing his best to escape the cloying control of his father and mother, argued constantly with his father. He built his own affinity of young men from the marches such as Roger Leybourne and Roger Clifford, and wandered around with an outrageously large household of 200 knights. During this period he was drawn towards the dreaded Lusignan, much to his mother's horror.

But the events of 1258 ruined that plan, as the Lusignans were vanished; and for a time Edward seems to have become a genuine reformer. For a time, he is drawn into alliance with Simon de Montfort. But in the end, blood would out – and when it came to the showdown at the battle of Lewes, Edward would be at his father's side.

Early reputation and the Song of Lewes

By the time of his death, Edward's reputation was as the great chivalric king. But this had not always been the case; his twisting and turning and changing faction during the 1250's and 1260's gave him a reputation as an untrustworthy young man.

This is reflected in the Song of Lewes, a fascinating contemporary document probably written by a monk. The document spends most of its time advancing the Barons' arguments as to why a king was subject to law; but there are snippets about the battle and Edward. in the extract below, the author reflects the prince's far from perfect reputation:

Whereunto shall the noble Edward be compared? Perhaps he will be rightly called a leopard. If we divide the name it becomes lion and pard; lion, because we saw that he was not slow to attack the strongest places, fearing the onslaught of none, with the boldest valour making a raid amidst the castles, and wherever he goes succeeding as it were at his wish, as though like Alexander he would speedily subdue the whole world, if Fortune's moving wheel would stand still for ever…

A lion by pride and fierceness, he is by inconstancy and changeableness a pard, changing his word and promise, cloaking himself by pleasant speech. When he is in a strait he promises whatever you wish, but as soon as he has escaped he renounces his promise. Let Gloucester be witness, where, when free from his difficulty, he at once revoked what he had sworn. The treachery or falsehood whereby he is advanced he calls prudence; the way whereby he arrives whither he will, crooked though it be, is regarded as straight; wrong gives him pleasure and is called right ; whatever he likes he says is lawful, and he thinks that he is released from law, as though he were greater than the King.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/16/71-enter-the-leopard/feed/370 Lords, Knights and Gentryhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/09/70-lords-knights-and-gentry/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/09/70-lords-knights-and-gentry/#commentsSun, 09 Sep 2012 08:30:30 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/09/70-lords-knights-and-gentry/Read More]]>The 13th Century sees the start of changes that will come to full fruit in the 14th Century – the development of the role of the knight in the shires, the appearance of the 'Gentleman', Bastard Feudalism.

By the way, I have a page with some basic data from medieval times – so click here if you want to look at population, prices and other economic data.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/09/70-lords-knights-and-gentry/feed/469 Merchants and trivial stuff about Magnateshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/02/69-merchants-and-trivial-stuff-about-magnates/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/02/69-merchants-and-trivial-stuff-about-magnates/#commentsSun, 02 Sep 2012 11:10:30 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/02/69-merchants-and-trivial-stuff-about-magnates/Read More]]>Wool was the wealth of England, the great trade that brought wealth and prosperity to England. The people who really made the money were the big ticket Italian Merchants. This week we also look at the life of Magnates, the super-rich during the period, and their households.

By the way, I have a page with some basic data from medieval times – so click here if you want to look at population, prices and other economic data.

External Trade

Just as the 13th C saw a continued growth of towns, so trade grew – to a value of about £500,000 by the end of the century. By and large, England was an exporter of raw materials, and an importer of finished products, or Agricultural products we could grown ourselves. Here are a few of the the things we exported:

Wine: counting Gascony as part of the piece, Gascony exported wine especially to the Continent. England of course was a very valuable customer – sometimes taking 20% of its output.

A million tons of tin from Cornwall

Lead from the Pennines and North Wales

The Wool Trade and Merchants

The Wool trade

But the big one was Wool; it generated something like half of England's external trade at this time.The size of our exports varied – reaching a height of 46,000 sacks. You might wonder what a sack of wool looks like – and if so, look no further than the Woolsack, which, slightly oddly, the Lord Chancellor chooses to sit on in the House of Lords.Those 46,000 sacks of wool were produced by something like 10 million sheep.

The trade was driven by the relationship with one of the two economic powerhouses of Europe – Flanders. Just across the channel, Flanders had the largest concentration of towns and cloth producing industry outside of North Italy, and our closeness to this key market gave us the edge. Although the wool we produced was not as fine as Spain's Merino, is was softer, and easier to felt – and so therefore cheaper to manufacture.

If you want to know more about the wool trade and industry, then here's a series of Ford lectures produced by the Economic Historian Eileen Powers.

Merchants

The merchants who dominated this trade were initially not English. The biggest firms were Italian – names like the Riccardi, the Frescobaldi, Peruzzi and the Bardi dominated the English scene. They dominated because of their access to markets, but also their unique way of joing together, giving them access to capital that the English Merchant couldn't compete with. Often, they would work with English merchants, who would gather wool from their hinterland, and sell to the large exporters at local fairs. But increasingly, Italian merchants went straight to the biggest producers – the Cistercian monasteries like Fountains or Rievaulx. They would buy up several years of crop in advance – the merchant got a great price (maybe as low as £4 a sack, which they could sell for £8), but took the risk that prices would fall; the Abbey got les for their crop, but got their money in advance, and the security that brought.

By the time of Edward I, the Italian houses were also lending serious amounts of money to the English crown – to their eventual downfall.

Nicholas of Ludlow and Stokesay Castle

Not all successful merchants were foreign; and over time, and certainly by the early 14th Century the picture had reversed, and English Merchants controlled the majority of the English trade.

An example is Nicholas of Ludlow, and his son Laurence, who became the richest merchants of their time. Laurence was enormously rich – lending for example, £4,000 to one baron in a single transaction. He became an adviser to Edward I on commerce, which to the fury of other merchants resulted in Edward tripling the customs duty on wool to £2 per sack. Laurence had the typical life of a Merchant – we know that he travelled the English fairs such as Boston, but also the great French fairs of Champagne. He sold to the cloth merhcants of the Low Countries such as Ghent, Bruges and Types. In 1291, he set off on a normal voyage, carrying in his ship 189 sacks of wool, each worth about £7 and containing 250 fleeces. Unfortunately, but much to the glee of his competitors, he was shipwrecked and drowned.

In 1280s, Laurence had bought into the landowning classes, in a model that will be recognisable for many hundreds of years of English history.

They built the rather exquisite Stokesay Castle in Shropshire in the Welsh Marches, which would more formally be called a fortified manor house. It was strong enough to resist a casual attempt at banditry from robbers or the Welsh, but not strong enough to resist a proper siege – there are lovely big windows that give direct access to the main hall, for example, that you could drive a wagon through.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/09/02/69-merchants-and-trivial-stuff-about-magnates/feed/568 13 C Life – Peasants fighting back…and Townshttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/08/12/68-13-c-life-peasants-fighting-backand-towns/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/08/12/68-13-c-life-peasants-fighting-backand-towns/#commentsSun, 12 Aug 2012 10:54:55 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/08/12/68-13-c-life-peasants-fighting-backand-towns/Read More]]>Being a Peasant was no doubt a pretty hard existence. But they were not without their methods of fighting back, and protecting their rights. This week also we look at the history of towns in the 13th century, as the economy continues to grow.

By the way, I have a page with some basic data from medieval times – so click here if you want to look at population, prices and other economic data.

Relative size of towns – evidence from taxation

The chart below gives a perspective on the relative volume of trade through each town. Although by this stage London would have been by far the largest town by population, it’s clear from this that other towns were much closer in terms of the colume of their trade. Obviously there are a lot of missing west coast ports and inland towns, but the total volume of trade in these ports suggested by these returns was £75,000. It’s also quite fun, of course to see how times have changed over the centuries – towns like Boston and Fowey had an importance in trade that these days it would be difficult to see.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/08/12/68-13-c-life-peasants-fighting-backand-towns/feed/967 13th Century Life – the Peasantryhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/08/05/67-13th-century-life-the-peasantry/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/08/05/67-13th-century-life-the-peasantry/#commentsSun, 05 Aug 2012 10:31:57 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/08/05/67-13th-century-life-the-peasantry/Read More]]>Over the 13th century, economic growth continued. For the Peasantry, this gave some opportunities; more chance to sell their produce and get involved in a wider range of money making ventures. It meant that population growth continued, since cottagers and wage earners were able to make enough to get by on small plots of land; and so the density of landholding grew. During the 13th century all of this is fine – but there could be trouble ahead.

By the way, I have a page with some basic data from medieval times – so click here if you want to look at population, prices and other economic data.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/08/05/67-13th-century-life-the-peasantry/feed/366 The Road to Revolutionhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/07/15/66-the-road-to-revolution/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/07/15/66-the-road-to-revolution/#commentsSun, 15 Jul 2012 08:44:37 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/07/15/66-the-road-to-revolution/Read More]]>In 1258, the resentments all came together and the pot boiled over. The pope Alexander did his vassal no favours what so ever by pushing so hard that Henry had to ask his great men for more money.Together with some blazing rows between the Lusignans and the English barons, the spark had been applied to the powder keg. The result was the hobbling of the king by the Provisions of Oxford.

Gascony

In 1248, the truce with France ended. So Henry had to get Gascony sorted out. There was little Ducal control, and one man in particular, Gaston de Bearn had a history of independence. You can see Bearn on the map to the south and centre. Meanwhile the Spanish kingdoms to the south – Aragorn, Castile, Navarre – all had claims and presented a threat.

Henry's solution was to turn to Simon De Montfort. It's difficult to decide whether de Montfort did a good or bad job – he was brutal and high handed, but he probably was bringing the locals to heel. Trouble was that it was all too much fuss and bother for Henry to deal with, lots of complaints from the locals, lots of expense.

So in 1252 de Montfort was basically put on trial in front of parliament. Things got nasty, and personal, between de Montfort and Henry. But the English Barons were on de Montfort's side. In the end, however, de Montfort was sacked, and Henry took over – with a remarkably successful campaign. It left a further fund of resentment.

The Sicillian affair

Frederick Hohenstaufen (the Holy Roman Emperor) and the Papcy didn't get on. So when Frederick died leaving a young sone, the Papacy wanted to make sure no Hohenstaufen inherited the Kingdom of Sicily, part of the Emperor's dominions or a Papal fief, depending who's side you were on.

So the Pope offered Sicily to Henry's younger son Edmund. Oh, along with the price tag of 135,000 marks, since the Pope needed to go and capture it from Frederick's illegitimate son, Manfred.

Whether or not it was possible – and some historians argue it wasn't as daft as it seems, and actually something similar did happen in the end – Henry did not involve his barons, did not have the money; the the Pope's aggressive and hectoring attitude to Henry put him in a politically very difficult decision. It forced hin in 1258 to ask his great council for money when he'd really rarher not have had to.

Revolution and the Provisions of Oxford

In April 1258 7 magnates cornered Henry at Westminister and told him he wasn't up to it. He needed to appoint a council of 24 to manage and reform the kingdom, and he needed to get rid of the Poitevins. Henry bravely caved in, and thus the monarchy suffered it's greatest loss of power in a simple stroke.

In June 1258, the Great Council, or Parliament as it was being called since 1236, met at Oxford. A muster for a Welsh campaign was happening the follwing week at Chester, so a large number of lesser Barons and knights came along too. So the meeting was a much more socially diverse group, and much more radical than might be expected.

A series of thoughts and agreements came from the parliament, which we call the Provisions of Oxford, which would be develop later into the Provisions of Westminister. They are a dramatic and radical remodelling of the nature of kingship in England. The main points were:

A new council of 15 was set up, to bypass the problem of the hung council of 24; and the royal representatives were reduced to just 3. So Royal authority was now at the mercy of the barons.

There now had to 3 parliaments every year, whether the king liked it or not. So no avoiding the issue of the day.

The major ministers of state were to be re-instituted – Justiciar, Treasurer, Chancellor, so that the kings couldn’t make those arbitrary decisions any more. And most radically, it was the council that had the final say on who they were. So, the king didn't appoint his own ministers? Now that is radical.

4 knights were delegated in each shire to collect complaints against officials and take them to the Justiciar. So much more power and authority was delegated to the localities

The approach of tax farming was abolished; Sheriffs now had to account for everything they submitted, and they were paid a salary, were recruited for a year, and were to come from the local community.

If you want to see the Provisions of Oxford in full, here they are, with many thanks to Kim for her help. There is a lot of oathtaking!

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/07/15/66-the-road-to-revolution/feed/365 Why was Henry III so unpopular?https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/07/08/65-why-was-henry-iii-so-unpopular/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/07/08/65-why-was-henry-iii-so-unpopular/#commentsSun, 08 Jul 2012 10:55:01 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/07/08/65-why-was-henry-iii-so-unpopular/Read More]]>It seems strange. Henry III was a likable enough chap, who did his best to keep a harmonious court, and gave England an extended period of peace. And yet it's all going to go up in flames around him. So the question is, why was he so unpopular?

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/07/08/65-why-was-henry-iii-so-unpopular/feed/564 The Personal Reign of Henry III – Part 1https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/27/64-the-personal-reign-of-henry-iii-part-1/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/27/64-the-personal-reign-of-henry-iii-part-1/#respondWed, 27 Jun 2012 09:14:22 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/27/64-the-personal-reign-of-henry-iii-part-1/Read More]]>Henry III brushed off his great officers of state and the period of 1234 to 1258 is a period of personal rule. Henry finds himself a wife, a new personal favourite in the form of Simon de Montfort, and makes one last attempt to regain Poitou.

The character of Henry III

The word that seems to have stuck with Henry is 'simplex' – a word that could mean honest and straightforward, or stupid. Lets say it means naive in Henry's case. Henry lacks the nastiness of his father, but also his energy and strength of will. Despite the fact that he tries hard to maintain peace and happiness at court, he ends up suffering rebellion

Henry was a very pious man – who also had something of an obsession over Edward the Confessor. As a result, his first born son was landed with the outlandish, anglo saxon name of Edward, and Henry devoted massive time and resources to rebuilding Westminster Abbey.

Eleanor of Provence

in 1235, the 12 year old Eleanor and Henry were married. Eleanor was one of 4 daughters who married into the English and French monarchies. She was to prove a force in English politics despite all the disadvantages of the Queen's position.

Simon de Montfort arrives

Simon de Montfort was born in 1208, the third son of Simon de Montfort and Alice de Monmorency, a remarkable couple. De Montfort the elder had been a chief prosecutor of the Albigensian crusade in the south of France and had died outside the walls of Toulouse in 1218. By 1221 his mother was also dead, and so Simon was left an orphan at the age of 13.

De Montfort had a vague claim to the Earldon of Leicester. He bought out his elder brother Amaury's claim for £500, and headed over to England. By 1230 he had persuaded the Earl of Chester (with some financial help) to surrender his claim, and was in place.

In 1236, de Montfort married the king's sister Eleanor. This was political dynamite – Eleanor would have been a valuable counter in the game of international diplomacy, not someone to be chucked away on random barons.

A couple of points about this period then; firstly, Simon's character reflects his early years. Fiercely and militaristically religious; rigid minded with enormous force of character and charisma; a silver tongue, able to talk himself out of most situations; ambitious; but also with a constant sense of financial vulnerability from the early years as a landless third son that made financially grasping and more than a bit greedy.

Secondly, he is closer to the king in the 1230's and 1240's that almost any other baron, at the centre of the king's court. But the relationship becomes ever more uneasy; de Montfort was capable of shouting at the king in a way that no one else would dare to, and was constantly claiming that Henry owed him money. Henry was a weak man and I imagine (a guess) that after being initially dazzled by de Montfort, deep down he came to heartily hate the man as he was bullied and hectored.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/27/64-the-personal-reign-of-henry-iii-part-1/feed/063 The Last Great Justiciarhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/24/63-the-last-great-justiciar/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/24/63-the-last-great-justiciar/#commentsSun, 24 Jun 2012 08:58:48 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/24/63-the-last-great-justiciar/Read More]]>From 1227 to 1234 we are sort of in betweeners – the minority has ended, but Henry's government in still dominated by the old guard, people like Hubert de Burgh. But it doesn't go well – money is still tight, Henry's campaigns in France aren't great, and in 1232 Peter des Roches, the old enemy, is back in the country.

The period between 1227 and 1258 is tagged as Henry's personal rule. The first period within this might be considered to be 1227 to 1234, from when he announced at a magnum consilium at Oxford that he would take control of the royal seal; until 1234, when the fall of Peter des Roches signals the end of the system of Justiciars or high profile leading men.

The fall of Hubert de Burgh

When Henry ends his minority, Hubert at last cashes in – he is made Earl of Kent, is assigned 2 honours and the welsh border castles of Grosmont, Skenfrith, the White Castle and others.

But by 1232 his government and reputation is in trouble; the barons didn't like such a low born bloke having such riches. Hubert's power had begun to rub the church up the wrong way, and Henry managed to blame him for the failure of the French campaigns and the lack of available cash. So on the return of Peter des Roches, Hubert is in trouble – and in 1232 he is imprisoned in Devizes castle, and des Roches' man, Peter De Rivaux takes over.

The Fall of Peter des Roches

Peter des Roches was an even worse choice. At least Hubert basically believed in Magna Carta and consensual government between king and barons – Peter rode roughshod over all of that. Plus he completed failed to improve the royal finances in anyway, and by 1234 the Earl of Pembroke was in revolt.

It took Edmund of Abingdon, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, to bring peace. He made Henry accept that he made the wrong choice – and Peter de Rivaux and Peter des Roches were removed. From here on in Henry aimed to rule without he great officers of state, though strictly speaking Stephen Seagrave was Justiciar for a short period.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/24/63-the-last-great-justiciar/feed/262 The Minority Abroadhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/03/62-the-minority-abroad/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/03/62-the-minority-abroad/#commentsSun, 03 Jun 2012 08:52:54 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/03/62-the-minority-abroad/Read More]]>Harmony with Scotland, the career of Llewellyn the Great, the loss of Poitou. During the minority of Henry, English prestige and power was at something of a low point – with the one exception of Gascony, where a supreme effort brought one success. And meanwhile in Southern France, the Cathars burned.

Llewellyn the Great

Llewelly was both a warrior and consummate politician. He had a vision for a Wales united under one ruler (himself, in case you were wondering). And although Henry manged to hang on to the principle that other rulers of Wales should pay him homage, Llewellyn pretty much achieved the fact of a united Wales. After his death in 1240, historians point to the lack of lasting legacy, but for 40 years Llewellyn dominated Welsh politics and more than held the English at bay.

The loss of Poitou

Hubert de Burgh knew that the English were in a perilously weak position in Poitou - no cash, no power. But for a while they managed to get Phillip Augustus to renew the truces. Meanwhile they had to keep the powerful Lusignan clan happy in La Marche, going to the extent of betrothing little 10 year old Joan, daughter of John, to Hugh de Lusignan.

Isabella of Angouleme left England and her son for her homeland; and then in 1220 dropped a bombshell. She stuck her palm in her daughter's face, pushed hard, and married Hugh de Lusignan herself, son of the man she had been betrothed to before John had come along.

Then in 1224, Louis the new king of France did not renew the truce, and made alliance with Hugh and Isabella. By 1225 it was all over, Poitou was gone, and it looked like Gascony would go the same way – only Dax, Bayonne and Bordeaux held out.

Gascony Saved

Louis left hugh to mop up – after all there were only 3 major towns holding out. But in fact the Gascons were determined to stay with England – afterall, that's where all their trade went. So they maintained and army in the field, and Henry managed to raise a tax.

So in 1225 William of Salisbury and Richard of Cornwall came over, and soon Hugh found himself pushed back to a few areas, including the town of La Reole. Louis tried to come back and help, but was ambushed trying to cross the Dordogne, and therefore unable to link up with Hugh.,

By the end of 1225, therefore, Gascony had been saved for the English crown for 200 years more.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/06/03/62-the-minority-abroad/feed/1061a Bannockburn by Zack Twamleyhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/28/61a-bannockburn-by-zack-twamley/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/28/61a-bannockburn-by-zack-twamley/#commentsMon, 28 May 2012 13:01:38 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/28/61a-bannockburn-by-zack-twamley/Read More]]>Bannockburn was a landmark defeat for the English, which signalled a long term change to the strategy Edward I had started. Zack talks about the events that led up to the battle, how the battle itself unfolded, and how England reacted to defeat.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/28/61a-bannockburn-by-zack-twamley/feed/1061 The Minority of Henry IIIhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/19/61-the-minority-of-henry-iii/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/19/61-the-minority-of-henry-iii/#commentsSat, 19 May 2012 15:02:55 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/19/61-the-minority-of-henry-iii/Read More]]>The years between 1219 and 1227 saw the gradual resumption of royal power. It also saw a power struggle between Peter des Roches, the Bishop of Winchester, and Hubert de Burgh the Justiciar. By January 1227 when Henry took control of the royal seal, that struggle at least seemed to be fully resolved in favour of Hubert.

The Problems facing the Regency

The triumvirate of Hubert de Burgh, Peter des Roches and Pandulf (the Papal Legate) were broadly:

Not enough money: Too many of the king's sheriffs kept royal revenue for themselves to use for local government, rather than sending revenues to the central exchequer

No control: too many of the royal sheriff did not alwyas answer to the king

Loss of control over royal castles and desmesne lands

Falkes de Breaute

Is a good example of the problem. He was a loyal supporter of Hubert de Burgh and the king. But he thought the king was best served by strong local servants such as himself. Also, until the king gained his majority, Falkes considered it would actually be wrong of him to hand royal castles over to other people – like Hubert.

By 1224, Falkes was as powerful as the king in his heartlands, as shown on the map. But at the siege of Bedford in 1224 he was finally brought to heel. He was exiled, his brother hanged.

Assumption of the royal seal

By 1227 the crown had re-established control, and revenues had recovered to a degree – though still no where near those of King John's or the Capetian kings of France. Hubert had gained political ascendancy, and Peter des Roches had gone on pilgrimmage. So in January 1227, Henry took control of the royal seal – effectively singalling that he had gained his majority.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/19/61-the-minority-of-henry-iii/feed/160 William the Regenthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/13/60-william-the-regent/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/13/60-william-the-regent/#commentsSun, 13 May 2012 08:24:43 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/13/60-william-the-regent/Read More]]>A man was needed to guide England through a civil war and minority. So who do you think they picked? The answer was of course William the Marshal who was now a very old man by the standards of the time. The Earl of Chester was politely asked, given the size of his holdings, but there was no holding William. In the two and a half years left to him, William was able to throw Louis out of the England and establish Henry as the rightful king. But he left an awful lot more for his successors to do

The Civil War of 1216-1218

The advantages in this civil seemed to lie all on one side – with the French prince, Louis, and his allies the Barons. After all, 97 holders of major baronies supported Louis, while just 38 were on Henry's side. And the Marshal's attempt to lure some away came initially to nothing. But appearances were deceiving; Henry had over 150 royal castles, supported by sheriffs and castellans who used the local area to support themselves. Reducing all these castles would take time and resources – in a way, it was bigger than the challenge William the Conqueror had faced. And John had done his cause a lot of good by dying; Henry was untouched by his reputation, and his advisors played on that.

The Battle of Lincoln, 1217

The battle of Lincoln is the second most decisive battle fought on English soil – but unlike Hastings is almost completely unknown. William the Marshal's victory meant that England would be ruled by Plantagenets not Capetians. There's a good description of the battle in David Carpenter's 'The Minority of Henry IIIrd, a book now remarkably difficult to get hold of !

Marshal won becuase he concentrated his forces and achieved a local superiority of forces. But he had to work at it – Louis's forces retreated behind the walls of the town, continued to besiege the castle and prepared to wait for re-inforcements. The Marshal wasn't having any of that. He sent Falkes de Breaute to break into the castle. Then while Falkes sallied out, the Earl of Chester attacked the north gate. While everyone was busy and occupied, the Marshal himself burst through a formerly blocked gate and charged into the enemy, so hard that he penetrated 3 ranks deep. By the end of the battle, many leaders of the rebel forces were captured for ransom including Robert fitz Walter, the former leader of the Army of God.

The only man of substance to be killed was the Count of Perche, stabbed through the eyes of his visor – you can see him in Matthew Paris's titchy pic above. Everyone was very sorry about it. No doubt loads of oiks like thee and me also got killed, but no one thought of that as worth mentioning.

The Battle of Sandwich, also 1217

Louis was confined to London by the defeat. He had one more throw of the dice – his wife Blanche of Castile was coming with re-inforcements from France. Which is where we come to the naval battle of Sandwich. As the French fleet sailed towards the English coast. Hubert de Burgh led the English fleet out. At first it looked as though he was running away – but in fact he was simply getting the weather gauge. The defeat of the French fleet sealed the fate of the rebels and the French. At the Treaty of Lambeth Louis made sure that the rebels would get their land back, and took a bribe of 10,000 marks to leave. In Paris's picture on the right, you can see Eustace the Monk losiung his head.

Regency and death

William had massive problems to deal with – lack of money, a bunch of independent sheriffs and Castellans wandering around, no Justice system. He did not manage to solve these problems before he died and handed his mantle on to the triumvirate of Pandulf, Hubert de Burgh and Peter des Roches. But he did achieve two things; he restarted the Eyres of the Royal Justices. This was important becuase royal justice was a visible manifestation of royal authority, and also because it generated revenue. And secondly, his constant involvement of the Magnum Consilium, for Great Council, legitimised his regime and firmly embedded the principle of consultation.

William himself died at Caversham on May 14th 1219.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/13/60-william-the-regent/feed/459 Magna Carta and the Death of a Tyranthttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/06/59-magna-carta-and-the-death-of-a-tyrant/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/06/59-magna-carta-and-the-death-of-a-tyrant/#commentsSun, 06 May 2012 08:34:03 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/06/59-magna-carta-and-the-death-of-a-tyrant/Read More]]>Bouvines wasn't the cause of the Baronial revolt, but it probably was John's last chance to avoid it. In 1215 at Runymede Magna Carta was signed. It's extremely unlikely that John ever intended to allow the treaty to survive – and his untimely death at Newark was the biggest single factor in Magna Carta's survival.

The Road to Runymede

When John arrived back from France in October 1214 he found England close to open revolt. The combination of John's capricious rule, his Justiciar's attempt to levy a tax and the defeat at Bouvines together made a volatile and inflammable mix. John was this time simply overwhelmed. It seems very unlikely that John had any intention of sticking by the Carter – for him it was probably just a way of slowing the barons down until he could get an army together.

Magna Carta

The 60 clauses of Magna Carta don't have many grand or stirring words. But somehow it manages to be massively significant, and keystone in the development of the democratic state.

A lot has been written about Magna Carta, so I'm not going to repeat them here. But excitingly enough here you will find a complete text of the 1215 version of the charter. The Charter is replaced by a revised version in 1217, and then a final version in 1225 – but this is the original, the attempt at a peace treaty.

And finally, to take the keeness to the ultimate level, Magna Carta is so called not becuase it's particularly long, but becuase in 1217 the smaller Forest Charter was created to deal specifically with the bits of the original charter that dealt with the much hated royal forest. and so here is an annotated version of that as well. Your cup runneth over.

The Civil War

John did not negotiate in good faith, because frankly he had no good faith available. By September the two sides were again at war. John soon had the upper hand; he assembled his mercenaries from abroad in Kent, and took Dover castle. His loyal castellans held over 150 royal castles against the rebels. The rebels had no siege train and essentially got stuck in London.

Then in 1216, the Barons invited Louis, son of the king of France to help them. He landed with 1200 knights and for a moment it looked all over. The Earls of Surrey, Arundel and Salisbury abandoned John. But in fact John retained his freedom of action, and his castles held – hius problem was that he failed to deliver a knock out blow.

The Death of a Tyrant

In October 1216, John arrived at Lynn on the north coast of Norfolk. There he caught dysentery. As he crossed the Wash to on his way to Lincoln, he famously lost some of his baggage in his hurry, though it was nothing like as much of a disaster as Roger of Wendover would have us believe.

He reached Newark where he died in the night of 18/19th October, after dictating his will. His body was taken to Worcester Cathedral by his mercenaries, where you can still see his effigy.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/05/06/59-magna-carta-and-the-death-of-a-tyrant/feed/1358 Tyranny and Defeathttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/22/58-tyranny-and-defeat/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/22/58-tyranny-and-defeat/#commentsSun, 22 Apr 2012 09:15:55 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/22/58-tyranny-and-defeat/Read More]]>From 1213 to 1214, John seemed to have got his problems more under control, and had built an alliance that looked to be capable of taking on Philip. There was trouble in the background caused by the tyranny of his rule and relationship with his barons, but his reconciliation with the Papacy and his international alliance held it at bay. But his hopes died on the field of Bouvines.

Reconciliation with Rome

In 1213 John was worried; he had discovered a plot led by Robert FitzWalter and Eustace de Vesci, and had to delay his attack on Wales tyo deal with it; there was a religious madman going around saying John would not live out the year, and the rumours were that the Pope was going to declare him deposed.

So he met the Papal legate. And not only did he agree to take Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury, he agreed to pay back 100,000 marks to the church, and to pay homage to the Pope for his lands – so England was now a papal fief. He was also later to take the cross. All of this gave John the ethusiastic support both to allow him to build an anti-French coalition, and in the coming struggle against the barons.

Tyranny

John was truly incompetent where it really mattered – in managing his barons. All he wanted was to rule like his father and brother, but he was incapable of building trust with his barons. Here's brief list of why so many barons had grown to hate John's rule:

he kept trying to drag them off into wars they didn't care about in France

he taxed them mercilessly – 11 scutages for example

He was predatory – he charged high 'reliefs' (the charge to take over your inheritance) , he fined them at the drop of a hat (you had to pay to marry who you wanted to, you had to grease the king's palm to get his 'goodwill')

He didn't trust the barons – he surrounded himself with foreign household knights rather than relying on the magnates for advice

Bouvines and the campaign of 1214

John invaded Poitou in south west France and did well – but in Anjou his Poitevin barons would go no further, and not attack the king of France; John was forced to retreat back to the coast.

Meanwhile on July 27th, Phillip Augustus with 15,000 men was facing the allied army in northern France at Bouvines. The allied army was in the order of 25,000 men, though the French were probably stronger in cavalry.

The traditional 3 battles of the allies were held by Renaud of Boulogne on the right, Otto in the centre, and Count Ferrand of Flanders on the allied left. Against them Philip unfurled the oriflamme, the symbol of the French king at war.

The battle started with a confused struggle of Cavalry, but on the allied left, the Flemings were defeated and put to flight, and Ferrand captured. In the centre the best infantry of Europe, the Brabanters, were pushing the French centre back. Philip counter attacked with his cavalry, only to be met by Otto and his cavalry, and in the melee Phillip himself was unhorsed. The situation was saved for France by the returning cavalry from the right wing; it was now Otto’s turn to be unhorsed, and he was barely able to escape with a few attendants to run back to Germany. The battle wasn’t over; Renaud of Boulogne organised a stand of 700 Pikemen, in the organisation that would cause the English so many problems at Bannockburn. From behind the group he and a group of knights made continuous cavalry charges, while the French cavalry were unable to break the screen of defending mercenaries. Eventually, 3,000 men at arms simply overwhelmed, and Renaud and the king’s bastard son William of Salisbury were captured

John signed a 5 year truce with Phillip, and in October 1214 returned to England to face rebellion and the road to Runnymede.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/22/58-tyranny-and-defeat/feed/557 The Excommunicatehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/15/57-the-excommunicate/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/15/57-the-excommunicate/#commentsSun, 15 Apr 2012 09:03:50 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/15/57-the-excommunicate/Read More]]>John took a detailed interest in administration, and made effective changes to the way things worked. Partly his interest was motivated by the need to raise money – as inflation ate away at his earnings, and his desire to reconquer France magnified his need. The break with the church from 1208 to 1213 actually helped his need for money, and doesn't appear to have materially damaged his reputation in England

The break with Rome, 1208-1213

Neither John nor Pope Innocent III expected or wanted any trouble. The crisis was sparked by the monks of Canterbury.

When Hubert Walter died, the monks of Canterbury, jealous of their rights, secretly elected one of their number – Reginald, and off he hopped to Rome. John was livid – and forced the monks to elect John de Gray. In all the kerfuffle, Innocent III ending up imposing Stephen Langton on John as his new Archbishop of Canterbury.

Innocent had a clear view of Papal supremacy, as expressed in one of his letters thus:

Now just as the moon derives its light from the sun and is indeed lower than it in quantity and quality, in position and in power, so too the royal power derives the splendor of its dignity from the pontifical authority

However, in practice he would normally accept that the king's consent and approval was also required. The crisis was caused by a rather unfortunate concatenation of events.

John made the most of the crisis. He took the revenue from church lands for a while, and then when he realised he didn't have the men to administer them, made the Abbots and Bishops buy the land back. There appears to have been little reactin from Barons or anyone else to the Interdict and Excommunication. The crisis would only be resolved when other political problems forced John to seek allies.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/15/57-the-excommunicate/feed/856 The History of Medieval Europe, Part 2https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/01/56-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-2/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/01/56-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-2/#commentsSun, 01 Apr 2012 12:36:12 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/01/56-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-2/Read More]]>The Holy Roman Empire to the death of Barbarossa, the briefest of histories of Norway, Denmark and Spain, and the 4th Crusade. It's action packed.

The Investiture Crisis – Gregory VII and Henry IVth

Hildebrand, or Gregory VIIth to use his Papal name, was a reformer and Pope between 1073 and 1085. He firmly believed that the church should be independent from the influence of the material world, and unlike other Popes before and after him he was not prepared to compromise. He believed that the Papacy should be free of the influence of the Emperor, and indeed superior.

Henry IVth meanwhile was the descendant of Otto the Great. He believed in a system based on what he saw as the ancient right of the Roman Emperor to appoint the Pope. The system of government he inherited depended on him being able to choose churchmen he could trust to help him govern. He was utterly convinced in his right to 'invest' bishops and churchmen with the symbols of their office.

At the same time Henry IVth had to struggle with opposition from within German, w hose Princes

fought to establish their independence and liberties within the rule of the Emperor. In the struggle's most dramatic moment, beset by rebels allied with Gregory, Henry camped outside Gregory's palace in Canossa, in the robes of a penitent and pleaded to be accepted back into the Pope's favour. Gregory was forced to accept, and by so doing betrayed the rebels, who were then crushed by Henry. The Emperor established his own anti-Pope and ejected Gregory from Rome, who dies in exile in Sicily, lamenting

I have loved justice and hated iniquity – and therefore I die in exile

Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Emperor, 1152 – 1190

Gregory thought he had lost – but in fact the long term victory was his. The Emperor's anti-pope was never accepted, and the idea of the Emperor's supremacy over the Pope lost. Despite the outward glory of Barbarossa's reign, in fact by the end of his reign the basis of the Emperor's power was sorely eroded. Frederick lost control of the northern Italian cities. he was forced himself to prostrate himself before Pope Alexander III. He held enormous power in Germany, but at the cost of a new deal with the German nobility that accepted that they were a closed, hereditary circle, with power over their own lands, while the Emperor remained elective. Under Emperors weaker than Barbarossa, the weakness of the Emperor's real power would be exposed.

Medieval Spain and La Reconquista

Spain had been largely overrun by the Arabs by the 9th Century, leaving 3 small Christian states surviving in the north – Leon in the North West, Navarre in the north and Aragorn in the north east.

By 1210, and the map shows, Spain was once again largely Christian, though far from completely. Despite periodic setbacks as new Caliphates tried to re-establish the old Islamic dominance, such as the Almoravids and Almohads, disunity among the Arab states allowed the kingdom of Castille to lead the fight back. The fall of Toledo in 1085 and victory at the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 would prove decisive. By 1252, the last Muslim kingdom of Granada was a vassal of Castille, and would finally cease to exist in 1492.

Byzantium, the 4th Crusade, and the fall of Constantinople in 1204

After the death of Emperor Manuel Comnenos it is hard to find a Byzantine Emperor of any great talent. But the event which tore the heart out of the Empire came not from the East and the Islam world, but from the Christian west.

The evil genius is Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice. Enrico uses the fee he is owed from transporting the Crusaders to force the crusade away from the objective of Egypt to first recapture the city of Zara. Then Alexius Angelos, a man with a claim to the throne of Byzantium, and persuades the Crusaders to help him gain the throne – for a fee of course. But once in place, he changes his mind about the fee – having looked first at the state of the Imperial treasury. As a result, the Crusaders attacked and took Constantinople, and submitted it to the traditional 3 day sack.

Here's a contemporary account which gives a flavour of the sacking:

How shall I begin to tell of the deeds wrought by these nefarious men ! Alas, the images, which ought to have been adored, were trodden under foot ! Alas, the relics of the holy martyrs were thrown into unclean places ! Then was seen what one shudders to hear, namely, the divine body and blood of Christ was spilled upon the ground or thrown about. They snatched the precious reliquaries, thrust into their bosoms the ornaments which these contained, and used the broken remnants for pans and drinking cups,-precursors of Antichrist, authors and heralds of his nefarious deeds which we momentarily expect. Manifestly, indeed, by that race then, just as formerly, Christ was robbed and insulted and His garments were divided by lot; only one thing was lacking, that His side, pierced by a spear, should pour rivers of divine blood on the ground.

Nor can the violation of the Great Church be listened to with equanimity. For the sacred altar, formed of all kinds of precious materials and admired by the whole world, was broken into bits and distributed among the soldiers, as was all the other sacred wealth of so great and infinite splendor.

When the sacred vases and utensils of unsurpassable art and grace and rare material, and the fine silver, wrought with gold, which encircled the screen of the tribunal and the ambo, of admirable workmanship, and the door and many other ornaments, were to be borne away as booty, mules and saddled horses were led to the very sanctuary of the temple. Some of these which were unable to keep their footing on the splendid and slippery pavement, were stabbed when they fell, so that the sacred pavement was polluted with blood and filth.

For Venice it was a triumph – they captured the right to the trade of the Empire. For Byzantium it was a disaster.

The Empire split into a small Latin Empire and several Greek Empires – as you can see from the map below. Although the Latin Empire lasts only 57 years, and is eventually reconquered, Byzantium never recovers its strength.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/04/01/56-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-2/feed/455 The History of Medieval Europe, Part Ihttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/25/55-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-i/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/25/55-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-i/#commentsSun, 25 Mar 2012 10:52:32 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/25/55-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-i/Read More]]>From Charles Martel and the battle of Tours in 732, through Charlemagne and Otto the Great, the first installment concentrates on France, Germany and Italy and takes us to the shores of Gregory VIIth.

The Battle of Tours, 732

It is hotly debated as to whether or not Charles Martel’s victory over the Muslim armies in central France was the occasion that caused the Muslim tide to recede. Probably it’s not the cause but the event that marks it, but how ever you look at it the victory of probably 30,000 Franks over 75,000 previously unstoppable Muslim forces was hugely significant. Martel had prepared and trained his soldiers for this event, and his victory founded his dynasty – the Carolingian dynasty – which led to Charles the Great, Charlemagne.

The Empire of Charlemagne

Charlemagne’s Empire was a conscious attempt to re-create the glories of the Roman Empire of the west. Charlemagne put as much effort into reviving learning and spreading Christianity as he did into territorial expansion. None the less his Empire was huge, as the map shows (thanks to EB…).

Charlemagne was crowned as the Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo in 800. Charlemagne’s view of this event was very much that his servant, the Pope, was adding his support to his kingship. Pope Leo was trying to establish that Emperors only became Emperors when the Pope said so. This is an argument that will run and run.

Charlemagne becomes one of the touchstones of medieval Europe – just as he referred back to the Roman Empire, so future kings would refer back to the glories of Charlemagne.

Otto the Great and the Holy Roman Empire

After Charlemagne, his empire splits into three (see the small inset box map in map above). France, under Charles the Bald and his descendants, fragments under the pressure of Viking raids and communication into a series of semi-independant states. The French king concentrates on the development of his own power within the Ile de France, and maintaining some lip service to their legal supremacy over the rest of the Western Franks. In the end, it’s a strategy that pays handsome dividends under Phillip Augustus.

The Eastern Franks choose a different route. Otto the Great took up the mantle of Charlemagne, and fought to maintain a new Roman, and Holy Empire. He defeated the Magyars at Lechfeld in 955, and finally put an end to the chaos. He brought the warring leaders of the German ‘Stem Duchies under royal control. He chose a unique way of ruling this still huge and disparate empire. The Ottonian system relied on the church to be partners in ruling his empire. Prince Bishops would not try to establish dynasties, for example, to break away from the Empire. For over 100 years, Otto’s system works beautifully, and his Empire dominates Germany and much of Italy. But it relied on control of church appointments and control of the Popes. Local churchmen, by and large, were happy enough – the Pope was not.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/25/55-the-history-of-medieval-europe-part-i/feed/1354 Fighting Back – A Bithttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/18/54-fighting-back-a-bit/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/18/54-fighting-back-a-bit/#commentsSun, 18 Mar 2012 08:34:55 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/18/54-fighting-back-a-bit/Read More]]>John immediately launched attempts to get his lands back – and ran into the Barons. He does run up a pretty good Navy though. And we hear of Roland the Farter.

The Barons Refuse to fight, 1205

1205 gave John a sneak preview of what life would be like later. Despite his begging and pleading, the Barons would not go to France with him in 1205 to fight for the French lands. There was a genuine feeling that they should not be made to fight abroad. There was also a general feeling of distrust between King and his barons. John relied on his household knights and servants, and was too paranoid to build any trust with his great magnates.

1206 Campaign

But after a winter of travelling round England, John managed to persuade his Barons to fight the following year. And the 1206 campaign is quite successful; John manages to re-establish his authority in most of Poitou.

The English Navy

Under John, the strategic situation changed back to the way it had ben under the Anglo Saxons – now the English Channel was no longer just a river between Angevin lands. To be safe, the king must control the channel. And to give him his due, John does just this. New Galleys are commissioned, squadrons formed, seamen employed, and an administration out around the Navy under William of Wrotham.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/18/54-fighting-back-a-bit/feed/453 Torn Apart – Loss of an Empirehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/11/53-torn-apart-loss-of-an-empire/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/11/53-torn-apart-loss-of-an-empire/#commentsSun, 11 Mar 2012 06:06:53 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/11/53-torn-apart-loss-of-an-empire/Read More]]>After the defection of William des Roches the military situation was poor for John but not irretrievable. Unfortunately, John failed to provide the leadership needed. He distrusted his barons; he panicked and had no coherent strategy. When he killed Arthur, he pushed the self destruct button, and Normandy collapsed from with – the Barons no longer supported the descendants of William the Bastard.

The Murder of Arthur

It is not possible to definitively prove that John killed Arthur. But a bit like Richard III and the Princes in the tower, his failure to produce Arthur at any stage seems incomprehensible unless he did. The story is that John killed him at Rouen in a fit of drunken rage as the war turned against him. It was disastrous for John's reputation.

The Fall of Normandy

Normany fell because John's barons no longer cared to support him. John panicked, and had no coherent strategy. He distrusted his barons, and in return they distrusted him. He put vicious mercenaries like Lupescar in control of whole regions, and surrounded himself with household knights – not powerful barons who could make a difference.

In 1203, John ran for it. It is probably true that he intended to gather support from the English Barons, but he left it to late. On 6th March, Chateau Gaillard surrendered. After a triumphant march through Western Normandy, Phillipo returned to Rouen and on 26th April he entered the Norman capital.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/03/11/53-torn-apart-loss-of-an-empire/feed/352a Eleanor of Aquitaine by Melisendehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/26/52a-eleanor-of-aquitaine-by-melisende/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/26/52a-eleanor-of-aquitaine-by-melisende/#commentsSun, 26 Feb 2012 09:39:06 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/26/52a-eleanor-of-aquitaine-by-melisende/Read More]]>Eleanor of Aquitaine is one of the great names of the Middle Ages. Her life spanned almost all of the Angevin Empire, and her court at Poitiers became famous as the centre of courtly love. Much of her life was spent in conflict with her two husbands, but towards the end of her life she achieved the political influence she had earlier craved as the trusted supporter of her sons.

This episode is by Melisende of Outremer. You can find out more about women in history at Melisende’s website womenofhistory.blogspot.com.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/26/52a-eleanor-of-aquitaine-by-melisende/feed/152 John Softswordhttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/19/52-john-softsword/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/19/52-john-softsword/#commentsSun, 19 Feb 2012 08:05:11 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/19/52-john-softsword/Read More]]>As a younger man, John had been given the nickname Lackland because unlike his brothers he didn't have his own appanage. At the Treaty of Le Goulet in May 1200 he acquired the name Softsword – people couldn't understand why he'd signed away Gisors, parts of Berry, £20,000 and bent his knee to Phillip. On the other hand, John probably felt he'd had a good deal. Then John caused fury with the Lusignan by stealing their bride, they appealed to Phillip and and Phillip declared John to be stripped of his lands. But at the start of the war, John gets off to a flyer.

John's niece Blanche of Castille and Phillip's son Louis will marry, and the dower will be the disputed Gisors

John will do fealty to Phillip

It looked like a reasonable deal. In fact, it made it clear that the Angevins were subservient to the French king, which previously had just been a form of words. But John, from a commanding position in September 1199 was weaker in May 1200; his allies, the Counts of Flanders and Boulogne had left of crusade and John probably felt himself lucky.

Marrriage and the Lusignan

In 1200 John rocked up at the castle of his troublesome vassal, Aymer of

Angouleme. There he met the 12 year old Isabella of Angouleme, and was so smitten that he married her the same year at Westminster. Even in those days, marriage to a 12 year old was unusual – a betrothal would have been more normal – but the Count didn't seem to object.

Now there were perfectly good reasons for marrying the girl, quite apart from her charms. Angouleme was a powerful count, had always been a problem to the Angevins, and this brought them inside the tent. But unfortunately Isabella was already betrothed to Hugh le Brun, count of Lusignan.

John could have made it work – but he didn't. He sent sheriff's into their lands and goaded them. The Lusignans appealed to Paris for justice from John, and took up the sword. John tried to avoid giving them the justice they deserved and in the end, Phillip was able to wade in on the Lusignans' side. So in 1203 it was war again.

Victory at Mirebeau

Phillip's plan in the war was not new – Athur to attack the centre of he empire along hte Loire valley, while Phillip distracted John in Normandy.

At first all went to plan; John's army was not ready, and Eleanor of Aquitaine was forced to flee ahead of Arthur's army, taking refuge in Mirebeau.

Hugh de Lusignan (Hugh le Brun) and Arthur beseiged Eleanor and were confident of capturing her in a few days.

John marched the 80 miles from Rouen to Mire beau in 2 days, picking up William des Roches and completely surprising Lusignan and Arthur at Mirebeau.

It was a complete victory. Arthur, the Lusignans and all their knights were captured and imprisoned. Here's John's letter home:

"Know that by the grace of God we are safe and well and God's mercy had worked wonderfully with us, for on Tuesday before the feast of St Peter ad Vincula, when we were on the road to Chinon, we heard that the lady our mother was closely besieged at Mirebeau, and we hurried there as fast as we could, arriving on the feast of St Peter ad Vincula. And there we captured Arthur, whom William de Briouze delivered to us, and Geoffrey de Lusignan, Hugh le Brun, Andrew de Chauvigni, the viscount of Chateleraut, Raymond Thouars, Savary de Mauleon, Hugh Bauge and all our other Poitevin enemies, and none escaped. Therefore God be paraised for our happy success"

If John had not managed to upset and lose the loyalty of William des Roches almost immediately, history could have been very different. But he did. Arthur was sent to Rouen instead of being in des Roches's custody, and William rebelled, taking maine and Anjou with him.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/19/52-john-softsword/feed/1051 The Fouler Presence of John?https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/12/51-the-fouler-presence/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/12/51-the-fouler-presence/#commentsSun, 12 Feb 2012 09:01:17 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/12/51-the-fouler-presence/Read More]]>In 1199, Richard the Lion Heart died after being shot by a cook outside the castle of Chalus in the Limousin. The Empire was split between supporters of Arthur and supporters of John. Philip was for himself, with a bit for Arthur. That year was one of John's best years, where he showed that he could be effective.

The Death of Richard the Lion Heart

The legend is that Richard went to Chalus in the Limousin because a treasure trove had been found, the local lord refused to hand it over, and Richard was going down there to get his hands on it. It's much more likely that in fact this was part of a wider campaign against the rebellious Count of Angouleme and Viscount of Limoges.

Whatever the reason, Richard was on the verge of takin the castle when he went for a wander round hte castle, without armour but with a shield carried by a man at arms. On the tower was a lone man with a crossbow, using a frying pan as a shield. He shot towards Richard who applauded the shor – and so ducked too late. He was hit between neck and shoulder. back in his tent, Richard couldn't pull the whole thing out so a surgeon was called, who made even more of a mess of it. 3 days later Richard was dead.

The accession of John

Public opinion was split – Arthur, the son of Geoffrey of Brittany or John, son of the old king? England and Normany declared for John; Maine Anjou and Touraine for Arthur. Aquitaine wasn't a problem – it belonged to Eleanor. John was decisive. He talked round the key nobleman of greater Anjou, William des Roches. His defection too all the wind out of Arthur's sails. John took the fealty of 15 counts – including the crucial allies, the Counts of Flanders and Boulogne. Phillip had attacked eastern Normandy and Evreux, but now realised he could make little headway – and agreed to a truce.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/12/51-the-fouler-presence/feed/950 Defence of the Empirehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/05/50-defence-of-the-empire/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/05/50-defence-of-the-empire/#commentsSun, 05 Feb 2012 09:01:33 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/05/50-defence-of-the-empire/Read More]]>The war between Richard and Phillip went on from 1194-1198 in fits and starts ; usually there was no more than 3 months of fighting before a truce came along. But the general flow was steadily in Richard's favour when in 1198 they agreed to make peace. Meanwhile in England Hubert Walter ran an efficient administration that fed Richard with troops and arms.

The campaigns of 1194-1198

Normandy

There were two main theatres of war; Phillip concentretaed on Normandy and the Vexin, but also stirred up trouble on the Loire valley in Anjou, Maine and Tourraine.

In Normandy, from May 1194 Phillip slowly lost territory. In the Autimn of 1194 he was forced to retreat from Verneuil, and with John's defection back to his brother's side, he lost Evreux as well.

Then he lost the support of his recently won allies, the Counts of Flanders and Boulogne, and as a consequence the Border lords in the north east of Normandy came over to Richard as well.

In 1198, Richard suprised Phillip and his army near Gisors, and won a minor victory. He cried 'Dieu et mon Droit' as he attacked 'like a starving lion attacking his prey', the phrase that was to become the motto of the kings of England from Henry Vth's days. Poor old Phillip ran like a hare for the castle at Gisors, only to have the drawbridge break under them and end up in the drink.

The South

Richard mauled Phillips at Freteval in 1194; and although again it can only count as a skirmish, it gave him a free hand in the south. When Richard's mercenary capatain Mercadier captured the Auverge in 1195, it was pretty clear that Richard had the upper hand.

Peace at last

In 1198 peace was finally discussed in earnest. In essence, Phillip was to give up pretty much everything he had won except for Gisors. The Truce was agreed by Christmas, and while the peace treaty was being drawn up, Richard went off to settle some scores at Chalus in the Limousin…

Hubert Walter

Back home Hubert Walter was one of the Middle Ages' most competent administrators. Justiciar for 5 years, he introduced reforms to the legal system, that probably led to the post of Justice of the Peace and Cornoer. More importantly from Richard's point of view he get the money and troops coming to feed Richard's war.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/05/50-defence-of-the-empire/feed/449a Arrival of the House of Wessex videohttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/03/49a-arrival-of-the-house-of-wessex-video/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/03/49a-arrival-of-the-house-of-wessex-video/#respondFri, 03 Feb 2012 12:53:48 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/?p=1503Read More]]>My daughter and I thought we'd have a go at doing a video about the early period of the kingdom of Wessex. Someone at one point suggested I upload a photo of myself. This is too hideous a prospect, but there is a 1 second clip of my back walking into a crowd in this video – a special mention on the podcast goes to anyone who can spot who I am, and can explain why my trousers always look the way they do.

]]>https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/02/03/49a-arrival-of-the-house-of-wessex-video/feed/048 Richard and The Third Crusadehttps://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/01/22/48-the-third-crusade/
https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/01/22/48-the-third-crusade/#commentsSun, 22 Jan 2012 10:18:00 +0000https://thehistoryofengland.co.uk/2012/01/22/48-the-third-crusade/Read More]]>Was the Third Crusade a success or a failure? While it failed to achieve its objective, it was the most successful after the First Crusade. It rescued Outremer from an eradication that looked all too likely in 1190. The Crusade was controversial even at the time – in the eyes of most of Christendom it made Richard a hero – the victor of Acre and Arsuf. But to Philip's friends, Richard had failed, and betrayed Christendom to the Turk. To my mind it gave Outremer another century of life until the fall of Acre in 1291.

The Fall of Acre

It's a bit of a push to give Richard the credit for the fall of Acre – after all, Conrad and Guy had been working on it for the best part of 18 months when he arrived. But Philip and Richard's men did transform the situation, and by 12th July 1190 the city had fallen. The whole event was marred by the massacre of 2,700 of the inhabitants outside the walls of Acre on 20th August. While there's no doubt that Richard ordered the massacre, it's equally clear that Saladin was playing for time in his negotiation, and had missed the deadline for delivery of half the agreed money by 11th August. Richard could not afford to be tied down an Acre. Richard raised the Royal Standard. We are not sure exactly what it looked like then, but from 1198 it was - Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or armed and langued Azure – as above.

The Battle of Arsuf, 7th September 1191

The objective was to march down the coast and take the port of Jaffa. Throughout the march, Saladin's army harried the Crusaders, trying to get them to break ranks – allowing themselves to be isolated and destroyed piecemeal. But Richard's discipline held, and Saladin knew he had to commit his whole army to stop the march.

He did this at Arsuf. Time and again his mounted archers and skirmishers goaded the Crusader line, time and again richard refused the pleas to break ranks and commit a cavalry charge. Until eventually at mid afternoon, the Grand Master of the Hospitallers lost his patience and ordered the charge with cries of 'St George!'. Immediately Richard ordered a general charge, holding the English and Normans in reserve.

Saladin's army retreated in disarray; but Tariq al Din counter charged with 700 elite bodyguard, on to be met by the English and Normans. The day belonged to Richard, and 700 of the Muslim army were killed.

Success or failure?

Richard left the Holy Land in October 1193. He had captured Acre, Jaffa, Ascalon (though the fortifications had to be destroyed) and Darum. His treaty with Saladin gave Christian pilgrims access to the holy places. But despite having got within 12 miles of Jerusalem he had failed to capture the city, and that had after all been the objective.

But he left behind a viable state that was able to defend itself, which had been on the point of collapse. The Third Crusade achieved more than any other except the First, and did this against a unified Muslim leader of enormous talent.

In addition of course, he left behind Cyprus, and uniquely important source of resources and support for Outremer, ruled by Guy of Lusignan.

By most standards the crusade was a success, and one where Richard had demonstrated both his military and diplomatic talent.